Chagos Newsletter July 2013

UPDATE JULY 2013

PARLIAMENT

The Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group held its 5th Annual General Meeting and 37th meeting on 16 July.

The Group re-elected the current office holders (Chairman Jeremy Corbyn MP; Vice-Chairs, Lord Avebury, Lord Ramsbotham, Andrew Rosindell MP, Henry Smith MP; Secretary, Andrew George MP). David Snoxell was reappointed Coordinator and Richard Gifford Legal Adviser - the Group thanked them for their continuing support and service to the Group.

The Group considered recent PQs, interventions in debates and correspondence with FCO Ministers since its last meeting on 5 June. They felt that progress in tackling the issues was at last being made. Thanks were recorded to Baroness Whitaker and Lord Avebury for maintaining the correspondence with Baroness Warsi which had gradually exposed the weakness of FCO arguments.  They welcomed the written statement to Parliament of 8 July by Mr Simmonds (Update on the BIOT Policy Review)  announcing a new Feasibility Study into resettlement which the Group had been advocating ever since its first meeting in January 2009. They commended the FCO for reversing its position.  Members were not persuaded that resettlement would entail a "heavy ongoing contingent liability for the UK tax payer". The FCO could approach the EU, US, UN, Commonwealth, NGOs, and the private sector, to share the costs. Nor were they persuaded that the US was opposed to resettlement since the US had never said so publicly, although invited by the APPG on several occasions to explain any defence and security reservations they might have. 

Members were concerned that the timing for the Feasibility Study would go beyond the May 2015 general election. They agreed that decisions could not be left to a new government and that the study must be ready by the summer recess 2014 to give time for Ministers to take decisions on resettlement and implement them well before the election. The Group considered a draft letter to the Foreign Secretary, setting out its views on the Review and Feasibility Study. This would be dispatched before the summer recess on 18 July but it would not at this stage be made public. The Group asked the Chairman to table a number of PQs about different aspects of the Review and Feasibility Study. The Chairman said he would ask for an adjournment debate for the September session and Baroness Whitaker would ask for a similar debate in the Lords in October.

The next meeting will be held on 9 October.

David Snoxell

Coordinator of the Chagos Islands (BIOT) APPG

We are of course entering the summer recess period for parliament but there were a number of Chagos-related parliamentary questions this month, starting with Matthew Offord who on the 3^rd July asked:

“which British Overseas Territories have ratified the Aarhus Convention to Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters?”

Mark Simmonds (Boston and Skegness, Conservative)

“The UK's ratification of the Convention, which was deposited with the UN on 23 February 2005, does not currently extend to any of the UK Overseas Territories.”

4th July- Andrew Rosindell (Romford, Conservative)

“To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of land area is legally designated as a protected area for biodiversity conservation purposes in each of the 14 British Overseas Territories.”

Mark Simmonds (Boston and Skegness, Conservative)

“Territory Governments are responsible for the protection and conservation of their natural environments. We do not hold a central record of the information requested, except for the uninhabited Overseas Territories of British Antarctic Territory (BAT), British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (SGSSI), and the Sovereign Base Areas (SBAs).

The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty provides for the comprehensive protection of the Antarctic environment and designates Antarctica as a natural reserve, devoted to peace and science. Under the protocol, over 30 areas of the British Antarctic Territory have, to date, been designated as Antarctic Specially Protected Areas. A further four areas have been designated as larger-scale Antarctic Specially Managed Areas. The vast majority of these designations include reasons specifically relating to biodiversity conservation. A full list is available online at:

http://www.ats.aq/e/ep_protected.htm

The British Indian Ocean Territory's 55 islands have a total land area of only 60 sq km, within which Diego Garcia accounts for half the area. Of the other islands, none of which are larger than Hyde Park, seven are fully protected whilst the islands of Diego Garcia have part protection. In addition, the Eastern Islands in Peros Banhos are designated nature reserves.

Within the Sovereign Base Areas (which are administered by the Ministry of Defence), the proportion of land legally designated as protected areas for conservation purposes is: Special Protected Areas—0.52% (4,819 hectares); Ramsar (Convention on Wetlands of International Importance)—0.23% (2,171 hectares); and Special Areas of Conservation—3.10% (28,701 hectares).

In respect of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, the Wildlife and Protected Areas Ordinance 2011 affords an extremely high level of protection to terrestrial habitats and flora and fauna throughout South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. The Government of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands is developing plans for Specially Protected Areas, which can be designated under the Wildlife and Protected Areas Ordinance, and will undertake stakeholder consultation on those plans in due course.”

Andrew Rosindell (Romford, Conservative)

“To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the extent of (a) Crown land and (b) private land in each of the 14 British Overseas Territories is by (i) area and (ii) percentage of total land area.”

Mark Simmonds (Boston and Skegness, Conservative)

“Policy on land registration in each of the Overseas Territories is a matter of devolved
responsibility for their government. We do not hold a central record of the information requested except for the British Indian Ocean Territory and the British Antarctic Territory. We have limited information in respect of Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI) where the British Government was in direct control from 2009 to 2012.

In the case of the British Indian Ocean Territory, all land is Crown land with none held privately, with a total area of 60 square kilometres being 100% of the total land area.

In the case of the British Antarctic Territory the entire terrestrial area is Crown land, more than 1.7 million square kilometres, but our territorial claim is held in abeyance by the Antarctic Treaty of 1959.

At the time of the elections in TCI in November 2012, approximately 68% of land was registered to the Crown. Some 3,000 acres of land has been returned to the Crown since 2009.”

Andrew Rosindell (Romford, Conservative)

“To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many marine protected areas have been designated in each of the 14 British Overseas Territories for biodiversity conservation purposes; and what the extent of the area covered by each such area is.”

Mark Simmonds (Boston and Skegness, Conservative)

“The designation of marine protected areas (MPAs) is a matter of devolved responsibility. We do not hold a central record of the information requested except for South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (SGSSI), British Antarctic Territory (BAT), British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) and the Sovereign Base Areas (SBAs).

In 2012 the Government of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (SGSSI) declared a sustainable-use MPA of one million square kilometres in size (equivalent to four times the terrestrial area of the United Kingdom), including over 20,000 square kilometres of no-fishing zones.

Prior to ratifying the Antarctic Treaty, 1959, which places Antarctic sovereignty issues in abeyance, the UK had only declared a three-mile territorial sea around the British Antarctic Territory (BAT). However, in 2009, the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources agreed a marine protected area of 94,000 square kilometres on the Southern Shelf of the South Orkney Islands. In addition, a number of Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs), designated under the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, comprise marine areas around the BAT. Details of designated ASPAs can be found at:

http://www.ats.aq/e/ep_protected.htm

The British Indian Ocean Territory declared a no-take MPA in 2009 across its maritime zone of 640,000 square kilometres.*

There are no MPAs around the Sovereign Base Areas (SBAs).”

*but according to Defra it is actually 54,400 square kilometres, which naturally begs the question: is the MPA growing?  Answers on a postcard please to our usual address…

A debate on endangered species also took place on the 4^th July and included a couple of mentions of the Chagos Islands.  It is unfortunate that none of the participants were able to point out that the British government’s policy towards the Chagos Islanders has indeed been akin to trying to drive a community into extinction.  The full exchange can be found here but the relevant mentions on the Islanders were:

Barry Gardiner (Brent North, Labour)

“Of course, the largest area on the planet’s surface given over to the protection of endangered species is the Chagos marine protected area, which we established when we were last in government. The Pitcairn governing Council and the Bermudan Government are now asking the UK to designate marine protected areas in the south Pacific and the Sargasso Sea. What technical assistance will the Minister’s Department give to ensure that those excellent proposals become a reality?”

Richard Benyon (Newbury, Conservative)

“The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The scheme in the Chagos islands is exemplary and we want to see such schemes developed throughout the overseas territories. There are already plans to see proper marine protection around St Helena and a very exciting project in South Georgia. I want to see a necklace of marine protected areas that can be this country’s legacy from our imperial past to the future protection of marine zones.”

16th July- Matthew Offord (Hendon, Conservative)

“To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Overseas Territories (a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department have visited in an official capacity since May 2010.”

Mark Simmonds (Boston and Skegness, Conservative)

“Since May 2010, FCO Ministers have paid official visits to Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Ascension Island, the Sovereign Base Areas on Cyprus and the Turks and Caicos Islands.

In the same time period, FCO officials have paid official visits to all of the Overseas Territories.”

NEW FEASIBILITY STUDY INTO RESETTLEMENT OF THE CHAGOS ISLANDS

On the 8^th July the Minister for Overseas Territories Mark Simmonds made a statement to Parliament in which he outlined plans for a new feasibility study into the resettlement of the Chagos Islands (BIOT):

“The Government must be honest about these challenges and concerns. Long-term settlement risks being both precarious and costly. The outer islands, which have been uninhabited for 40 years, are low-lying and lack all basic facilities and infrastructure. The cost and practicalities of providing the levels of infrastructure and public services appropriate for a twenty-first century British society are likely to be significant and present a heavy ongoing contingent liability for the UK tax-payer.

However, the Government recognises the strength of feeling on this issue, and the fact that others believe that the resettlement of BIOT can be done more easily than we have previously assessed. We believe that our policy should be determined by the possibilities of what is practicable.”

It is good news that after we have been arguing for many years there is to finally be a new feasibility into resettlement on the islands.  We at the Association have long since suspected that the original feasibility study was not credible and was being used to fend off attempts to argue in favour of a right of return.  News of a re-evaluation of this critical report must be welcomed and we hope that it will conclude that a return is not only right but realistic too.

We will of course keep you updated on the progress of this study in future editions.

FCO BIOT POLICY REVIEW CONSULTATIONS

Last month we highlighted the Foreign Office (FCO) were taking steps to invite submissions for its BIOT Policy Review as part of its commitment to “take stock” following last December’s controversial European Court of Human Rights ruling from Strasbourg. 

Since this announcement was made the FCO have stayed true to their word (something quite unique for anyone who has followed this issue over the years) and have already met Olivier Bancoult, Sabrina Jean as well as other Chagossians both here in the UK and in Mauritius as well.

Some pictures from the visit to Mauritius

We at the Association welcome the initiatives and, while we insist that such steps are inevitably long overdue, it is vital that they are embraced and encouraged in the spirit in which they are made.

SABRINA JEAN STATEMENT

On the 8^th July Sabrina Jean the chair of the UK Support Association (UKChSA) released the following statement ahead of the FCO BIOT Policy Review team meeting in Crawley, which took place ten days later:

“We are delighted that the UK government is at last looking at returning the Chagossian people to our homeland in the Indian Ocean.

We were illegally deported from the Chagos Islands forty years ago, and Mark Simmonds, current minister for the Foreign Office, is to be congratulated for starting the process of return.

It is crucial that results of the review be completely transparent and fair – as the government has promised today.

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.

We look forward to working together with the Coalition government to return to our homeland.”

The meeting on Thursday 18^th July was useful in terms of providing an opportunity for Chagossians to express their views on the future of the islands but it was felt that more time should have been allocated for such an exercise and the Association has noted that a number of Chagossians were unhappy at being unable to make their submissions.

OLIVIER BANCOULT STATEMENT

Following a meeting with the FCO in Mauritius on 26^th June, the leader of the Chagos Refugees Group Olivier Bancoult released the following statement:

“First of all, once again, I would like to express my gratitude to all those who have expressed their support to Chagossians worldwide. Furthermore, I would like to reassure all my Chagossians brothers and sisters that the Chagos Refugees Group ‘CRG’ shall continue in its endeavour to ensure that justice ultimately prevails.

As I am sure you are all aware, representatives of the FCO expressed their wish to exchange dialogues with members of the Chagossians’ Community. The Chagos Refugees Group (CRG) once again, showed their good faith and agreed to cooperate with this initiative. Nonetheless, on the 26^th of June 2013 during our meeting with Sangeeta Ahuja Team Leader B.I.O.T Review Task Force and Martin Longden Head of Falkland & Southern Ocean Department (O.T.D) both from F.C.O, we honestly stated that while the Chagossians have always expressed their willingness to cooperate in view to find a solution to our plight, more often than not, the FCO has bypassed, ignored and dismissed our views. We cited the unilateral declaration of the Chagos Archipelago as a Marine Protected Area as the perfect example of our views and interests being disregarded despite the fact that we voiced out our concerns and opposition loud and clear.

During our meeting with Dr Sangeetah Ahujah and Martin Longden in the presence of the British High Commissioner Nick Leaks, we were given to understand that this initiative to open dialogues on resettlement is being carried out in light of the fact that the Foreign Secretary expressed his intention in December 2012 to review its policy. Furthermore, we were told that according to the FCO there are essentially two main obstacles that hinder the right to return. The feasibility of resettlement remains a controversial issue according to the FCO. Furthermore, the Deputy Commissioner of BIOT has confirmed that the United States remains opposed to resettlement as it purportedly threatens their defence interests. However, they proposed that we do not address the defence interests of the United States but to focus on the feasibility of resettlement instead. While we agreed to discuss the feasibility of resettlement, we made it clear that we remain sceptical because we cannot ignore the fact that the FCO could at a later stage conclude that defence interests dictate that resettlement cannot be envisaged. Furthermore, we explained that the feasibility of resettlement is a novel issue as many studies have been conducted. While we are not against a feasibility study, we believe that such initiative should be conducted jointly at every single stage and the Chagossians must be consulted throughout and within a well defined and appropriate timescale. Additionally, during the discussion, issues such as citizenship, scholarships, pensions schemes have also been addressed. The FCO representatives accompanied by the British High Commissioner also visited many houses wherein the Chagossians are living in Mauritius and thus witnessed their abject living conditions.

The very fact that we are participating in this process is proof of our good faith and commitment. Yet, we can only hope that this latest initiative of the FCO is one that is being pursued genuinely. In this regard, we kindly note that on the 9^th of July 2013 that is after our meeting with the representatives of the FCO which was held on the 26^th of June, Mark Simmons has stated the intention to review the resettlement policy.

We are happy that the meeting was conducted in an honest manner during which both parties have had the opportunity to freely express their positions. We hope that such meetings will be conducted on a regular basis because communication and dialogues are essential in our quest for justice.”

DAVID SNOXELL TRIBUNE ARTICLE

APPG Coordinator David Snoxell was invited for the third time this year by the Left-wing magazine Tribune to contribute an article on the latest developments in our struggle for justice.  This time the focus was on the recent ruling regarding the Judicial Review into the MPA in June.

“The MPA seems to have started off from good intentions, but officials soon saw that it could have the added advantage of making it more difficult for the Chagossians to return. WikiLeaks revealed that one official urged the United States embassy, when in discussion with Chagossian advocates and the APPG, to “affirm that the USG requires the entire BIOT for defence purposes” as a means of countering the argument that resettlement on the Outer Islands would have no impact on Diego Garcia.

While the US embassy cables reporting on the meeting with FCO officials revealed that the MPA was discussed partly in terms of blocking resettlement, it is clear that then Foreign Secretary David Miliband’s primary concern was to secure a green legacy, days before the general election was called. But he could hardly have been unaware of scientific, public and parliamentary support for an MPA which took account of Chagossian resettlement.

The documents released for the judicial review provide fascinating insights into the advice being submitted to the Foreign Secretary, leading up to the announcement of the MPA on April 1 2010. Officials cautioned that the results of the public consultation should be announced but not rushed, pending careful “management” of the Chagossians and Mauritius. ‘There was further work to do with stakeholders before establishing an MPA.’”

STEALING A NATION SCREENINGS- REVIEW

Earlier this summer Adam Burton organised a number of screenings in London of John Pilger’s award winning 2004 documentary ‘Stealing A Nation’.  These events enabled an opportunity to promote the cause of the Chagossian struggle for justice and created a fantastic platform to enable us as an organisation to reach out to new supporters.  One such attendee was Virou Srilangara​jah, a supporter who also joined us for our AGM earlier this year.  He has very kindly written a review on the session he attended back in June:

“On Wednesday 19^th June I attended a public film screening of John Pilger's meticulous 2004 film about the plight of the Chagossians, 'Stealing a Nation'. Despite the numerous awards it has accumulated, it has only been broadcast on British television once - almost a decade ago.

While it is fantastic to have such an esteemed figure as John Pilger on our side, it is also important that the Chagos islanders enter the consciousness of ordinary British citizens, who will play a huge factor as the 2014 renewal for the base in Diego Garcia comes ever closer. This was wonderfully exemplified by a Chilean mother who came along with her British-born son of university-age, both of whom contributed to a thoroughly engaging discussion afterwards and had not known about the Chagossians prior to the screening.

Our group conversation also brought up what had happened since the recording of the film, particularly legally (ECHR decision, judicial review, etc) but we also reflected upon the tragic deaths in exile of two of the most prominent Chagossians in 'Stealing a Nation', Lisette Talate and Charlezia Alexis.

Overall, we can be optimistic with the knowledge that the Chagossian people's struggle has gained more support from the British public and if the empathy and passion of the discussion afterwards is an indicator of public opinion, we can be hopeful in future for increased coverage in the media and for more positive outcomes in the political sphere.

Finally, a thank you to Adam Burton for organising this recent series of screenings in East London, and had also put in the effort in creating and distributing flyers to members of the public prior to the event. Also thanks to the very hospitable Eleanor from our lovely venue, independent bookshop, X Marks the Bökship.”

A huge thanks and appreciation to Adam once again for giving up his own time to coordinate these sessions and for all the other work has been doing on the cause recently.  Sabrina and I met Adam recently and have discussed a number of ideas which we hope to explore further over the coming months.

Thank you as always for your continued interest and support,

Clency Lebrasse (Update compiler)

Chagos Islands APPG AGM and 37th meeting July 2013

The Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group held its 5th Annual General Meeting and 37th meeting on 16 July.

The Group re-elected the current office holders (Chairman Jeremy Corbyn MP; Vice-Chairs, Lord Avebury, Lord Ramsbotham, Andrew Rosindell MP, Henry Smith MP; Secretary, Andrew George MP). David Snoxell was reappointed Coordinator and Richard Gifford Legal Adviser - the Group thanked them for their continuing support and service to the Group.

The Group considered recent PQs, interventions in debates and correspondence with FCO Ministers since its last meeting on 5 June. They felt that progress in tackling the issues was at last being made. Thanks were recorded to Baroness Whitaker and Lord Avebury for maintaining the correspondence with Baroness Warsi which had gradually exposed the weakness of FCO arguments.They welcomed the written statement to Parliament of 8 July by Mr Simmonds (Update on the BIOT Policy Review)  announcing a new Feasibility Study into resettlement which the Group had been advocating ever since its first meeting in January 2009. They commended the FCO for reversing its position.  Members were not persuaded that resettlement would entail a "heavy ongoing contingent liability for the UK tax payer". The FCO could approach the EU,US, UN, Commonwealth, NGOs and the private sector to share the costs. Nor were they persuaded that the US was opposed to resettlement since the US had never said so publicly, although invited by the APPG on several occasions to explain any defence and security reservations they might have. 

Members were concerned that the timing for the Feasibility Study  would go beyond the May 2015 general election. They agreed that decisions could not be left to a new government and that the study must be ready by the summer recess 2014 to give time for Ministers to take decisions on resettlement and implement them well before the election. The Group considered a draft letter to the Foreign Secretary, setting out its views on the Review and Feasibility Study. This would be dispatched before the summer recess on 18 July but it would not at this stage be made public. The Group asked the Chairman to table a number of PQs about different aspects of the Review and Feasibility Study. The Chairman said he would ask for an adjournment debate for the September session and Baroness Whitaker would ask for a similar debate in the Lords in October.

The next meeting will be held on 9 October.

David Snoxell

Coordinator of the Chagos Islands (BIOT) APPG

Statement of olivier Bancoult

 

c/o Chairman  Mr. L. Olivier Bancoult O.S.K

​

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

 

 

Dear All,

First of all, once again, I would like to express my gratitude to all those who have expressed their support to Chagossians worldwide. Furthermore, I would like to reassure all my Chagossians brothers and sisters that the Chagos Refugees Group ‘CRG’ shall continue in its endeavour to ensure that justice ultimately prevails.

As I am sure you are all aware, representatives of the FCO expressed their wish to exchange dialogues with members of the Chagossians’ Community. The Chagos Refugees Group (CRG) once again, showed their good faith and agreed to cooperate with this initiative. Nonetheless, on the 26th of June 2013 during our meeting with Sangeeta Ahuja Team Leader B.I.O.T Review Task Force and Martin Longden Head of Falkland & Southern Ocean Department (O.T.D) both from F.C.O, we honestly stated that while the Chagossians have always expressed their willingness to cooperate in view to find a solution to our plight, more often than not, the FCO has bypassed, ignored and dismissed our views. We cited the unilateral declaration of the Chagos Archipelago as a Marine Protected Area as the perfect example of our views and interests being disregarded despite the fact that we voiced out our concerns and opposition loud and clear.

During our meeting with Dr Sangeetah Ahujah and Martin Longden in the presence of the British High Commissioner Nick Leaks, we were given to understand that this initiative to open dialogues on resettlement is being carried out in light of the fact that the Foreign Secretary expressed his intention in December 2012 to review its policy. Furthermore, we were told that according to the FCO there are essentially two main obstacles that hinder the right to return. The feasibility of resettlement remains a controversial issue according to the FCO. Furthermore, the Deputy Commissioner of BIOT has confirmed that the United States remain opposed resettlement as it purportedly threatens their defence interests. However, they proposed that we do not address the defence interests of the United States but to focus on the feasibility of resettlement instead. While we agreed to discuss the feasibility of resettlement, we made it clear that we remain sceptical because we cannot ignore the fact that the FCO could at a later stage conclude that defence interests dictate that resettlement cannot be envisaged. Furthermore, we explained that the feasibility of resettlement is a novel issue as many studies have been conducted. While we are not against a feasibility study, we believe that such initiative should be conducted jointly at every single stage and the Chagossians must be consulted throughout and within a well defined and appropriate timescale. Additionally, during the discussion, issues such as citizenship, scholarships, pensions schemes have also been addressed. The FCO representatives accompanied by the British High Commissioner also visited many houses wherein the Chagossians are living in Mauritius and thus witnessed their abject living conditions.

 

 

 

The very fact that we are participating in this process is proof of our good faith and commitment. Yet, we can only hope that this latest initiative of the FCO is one that is being pursued genuinely. In this regard, we kindly note that on the 9th of July 2013 that is after our meeting with the representatives of the FCO which was held on the 26th of June, Mark Simmons has stated the intention to review the resettlement policy.

 

We are happy that the meeting was conducted in an honest manner during which both parties have had the opportunity to freely express their positions. We hope that such meetings will be conducted on a regular basis because communication and dialogues are essential in our quest for justice.

 

Regards,

 

Olivier Bancoult, OSK

Chairman CRG

 

 

Royal Road, Pointe aux Sables, Mauritius - Tel/Fax: +230 234-1024

Email: obancoultcrg@intnet.mu -  Website: www.chagosrefugeesgroup.net

Statement of Sabrina jean

  

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sabrina Jean, Chagos Community. We are delighted that the UK government is at last looking at returning the Chagossian people to our homeland in the Indian Ocean. We were illegally deported from the Chagos Islands forty years ago, and Mark Simmonds, current minister for the Foreign Office, is to be congratulated for starting the process of return. It is crucial that results of the review be completely transparent and fair – as the government has promised today. 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. We look forward to working together with the Coalition government to return to our homeland.

Chagos Newsletter June 2013

 UPDATE JUNE 2013

PARLIAMENT

The Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group held its 36th meeting on 5^th June 2013.

Members discussed recent correspondence with Ministers, parliamentary questions and interventions in debates since the last meeting on 24^th April. They were grateful to Baroness Whitaker for her speech during the Lords' foreign affairs, defence and development debate on 14^th May in which she recalled the commitment by William Hague before the election "to work to ensure a fair settlement of this long-standing dispute" and his promise on 20^th December 2012 to review the policy on resettlement. Baroness Whitaker had asked when Parliament would be consulted about the review, commenting that there was "much work to be done to make the MPA what it ought to be so that everyone can wholeheartedly support it".

The Group considered a Question, answered on 5^th June, from Lord Ramsbotham as to whether HMG "will commission an independent study to re-evaluate the science and practicality of resettlement, in consultation with the Chagossians, in the light of Prof. Kench's report which concluded that the 2002 feasibility study used untested models and contradictory evidence". It was noted that Baroness Warsi's answer that "we are currently reviewing our policy towards BIOT...do not have a timetable for the conclusion of this review but will update Parliament as soon as we are in a position to do so" avoided the question. It was also at odds with the offer of an independent scientific review made by the FCO Minister in charge of BIOT, Mark Simmonds, at a recent meeting which included the Chairman and Vice chairman of the APPG. Members did not understand whether the scientific review was separate from or subsumed within the wider review. They felt that both were necessary, especially as the scientific review would be independent.

The Group went on to discuss the nature and timetable for the proposed review. They were informed about a proposal put to the Minister by Mr Gifford that the review should include an independent study and take up where the 2002 Feasibility Study had left off, comprising a cost/benefit analysis, evaluation of livelihood strategies, consultation with Chagossians and an objective examination of sources of funding.

Members understood that the FCO had strengthened the team of officials undertaking the review and that it was the intention of Ministers and officials that it should be open, transparent and inclusive, look at every aspect of resettlement and consult all stakeholders. They questioned whether there should be an independent element to the review. The Group also understood that the Foreign Secretary would make a statement to Parliament before the recess in mid July about the progress, parameters and timetable of the review. Members noted that 7 months will have elapsed to reach only this first stage. They felt that it should be an oral statement to allow for follow-up questions. They accepted that it was a complex process but that there had to be a deadline so that the recommendations of the review could be agreed and implemented well before the end of the Coalition Government in May 2015. It was up to Ministers to ensure a deadline was set. They suggested that apart from Chagossian and conservation groups, the US, Mauritius and Parliament, other stakeholders should include DfID, the Human Rights Subcommittee of the European Parliament and the Minority Rights Group. Members decided to ask for a 90 minute Commons debate as soon as possible so that the views of MPs could inform the Foreign Secretary's statement. It was felt that a similar debate should be held in the Lords in September.

Members considered the research paper by the House of Commons Library published on 22 May, entitled "Disputes over BIOT: a survey". They felt that this was a helpful contribution to the debate and commended the author Jon Lunn. They also considered two papers on the controversy concerning the  number of Chagossians deported, one by Wenban-Smith, entitled "Population of the Chagos 1820-1973" published by Chagos News (CCT) in Jan 2012 which concluded that the number could be as few as 500 and a much more detailed response by Dunne and Gifford published in Population, Space and Place entitled "A Dispossessed People: the Depopulation of the Chagos Archipelago, 1965-1973" which concluded that "the policy of the British Government drove between 1,328 and 1,522 Ilois into exile and poverty on Mauritius and a further 322 on the Seychelles".

The next meeting and 5th annual AGM will be held on 16^th July.

David Snoxell

Coordinator of the Chagos Islands (BIOT) APPG

At a time when APPG’s have received bad press coverage thanks to a BBC documentary on “cash for access” of British parliamentary MPs, it is worth pointing out that the Chagos Islands APPG simply operate without any funding at all and survive solely on the goodwill of the members involved.

It was a very busy month of Chagos-related parliamentary questions and Andrew Rosindell got us underway on the 3^rd June when he asked:

“what his policy is on the teaching of the history of British Overseas Territories in schools.”

Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk, Conservative)

“We believe that all pupils should be taught the history of Britain, and that that teaching should include the history of the British empire, as well as the wider impact of Britain and Britons on world history.

We are currently considering responses to the public consultation on our proposals for the new history curriculum published earlier this year, and will make further announcements in due course.”

Our Association will eagerly await further announcements on this.  One can only wonder how the new history curriculum will be packaged to describe the atrocities committed against the Chagos Islanders.

4^th June- Lord Ramsbotham:

“To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether they will commission an independent study to re evaluate the science and practicality of resettlement of the Chagos Archipelago, in consultation with the Chagossians, in the light of the recent report by Dr Paul Kench which concluded that the 2002 feasibility study used untested models and contradictory evidence.”

Baroness Warsi (Conservative)

“We are currently reviewing our policy on the British Indian Ocean Territory. We do not have a timetable for the conclusion of this review but will update Parliament as soon as we are in a position to do so.”

5th June- Andrew Rosindell (Romford, Conservative)

“To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many civilian permits his Department has issued allowing access to the British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Islands) in each of the last five years.”

Mark Simmonds (Boston and Skegness, Conservative)

“The British Indian Ocean Territory Administration has issued 25 permits in 2013, 42 permits in 2012, 39 permits in 2011, 106 permits in 2010 and 78 permits in 2009. Permits are issued for yachts in sale passage and for any visitors to the territory.

In accordance with our legislation, contractor personnel are deemed to be in possession of a permit if their name is included in a list which is accepted by the principal immigration officer.”

5th June- Andrew Rosindell (Romford, Conservative)

“To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his US counterpart on the subject of the British Indian Ocean Territory.”

Mark Simmonds (Boston and Skegness, Conservative)

“I have not discussed the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) recently with my US counterpart. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and State Department officials have regular discussions about all bilateral matters including the British Indian Ocean Territory. The most recent BIOT Pol-Mil annual talks were held in London in October 2012.”

5th June- Andrew Rosindell (Romford, Conservative)

“To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department is taking to increase public access to the British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Islands).”

Mark Simmonds (Boston and Skegness, Conservative)

“We have no objective of increasing public access to the British Indian Ocean Territory. It is not a tourist destination. Access to Diego Garcia is limited to those needing to visit for official purposes. Mooring permits are issued to yachts in safe passage.

An increasing number of scientific expeditions have been visiting the British Indian Ocean Territory to carry out research and conservation work.

Since 2006, the British Government has been organising visits for Chagossians to the three main islands to enable them to re-visit their birth places and hold ceremonies at the graveyards of relatives. The most recent visit took place in October 2012.”

5th June- Andrew Rosindell (Romford, Conservative)

“To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many trespassers have been evicted from the British Indian Ocean Territory in the last two years.”

Mark Simmonds (Boston and Skegness, Conservative)

“In the last two years, the British Indian Ocean Territory Authorities have discovered only one case of trespassing. This was a yacht moored in the territory without a valid permit. The yacht was instructed to leave.”

5th June- Andrew Rosindell (Romford, Conservative)

“To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to promote accountability and good governance on Ascension Island.”

Mark Simmonds (Boston and Skegness, Conservative)

“The British Government promotes good governance and accountability in all of the Overseas Territories. Considerable effort continues to be put into encouraging active participation in politics on Ascension Island. In 2011-12, a stipend for councillors was introduced to encourage high calibre candidates, and this year money will be spent on professional training for new councillors. Representatives from the Ascension Island Council are also invited to the annual Joint Ministerial Council hosted in London, where there have been a number of seminars on improving good governance and accountability.”

11th June- Andrew Rosindell (Romford, Conservative)

“To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his (a) US and (b) Mauritian counterpart on the future of the British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Islands).”

Mark Simmonds (Boston and Skegness, Conservative)

“I have had no recent discussions on the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) with my US counterparts. Foreign and Commonwealth Office and State Department officials have regular discussions about all bilateral matters, including BIOT. The most recent US-UK BIOT Pol-Mil annual talks were held in London in October 2012. BIOT is often raised in our bilateral discussions with Mauritius.”

11th June- Lord Ashcroft (Conservative)

“To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of An assessment of environmental protection frameworks in the UK Overseas Territories produced by the Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.”

Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Whip, House of Lords; Liberal Democrat)

“We are working with representatives from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Overseas Territory Governors’ Offices and relevant government departments to address the issues highlighted in the report.

While environmental issues are devolved to territory governments, the Government are committed to working with them to address the important issues raised in the report.”

17th June- Grahame Morris (Easington, Labour)

“To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received from the US administration on the possible re-settlement of Chagos islanders who wish to return to their homeland since his commitment to review the policy on re-settlement on 20 December 2012.”

Mark Simmonds (Boston and Skegness, Conservative)

“There have been no recent representations from the US administration on the possible re-settlement of the Chagossians.”

On the 18^th June there was a series of oral answers to some questions-

Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North, Labour)

“What recent developments there have been in Government policy towards the Chagos islands; and if he will make a statement.”

Mark Simmonds (Boston and Skegness, Conservative)

“As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary stated in December last year, we are taking stock of our policy on the British Indian Ocean Territory. We are engaged in a programme of consultation, including with the Chagos islanders.”

Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North, Labour)

“Will the Minister put a timetable on that consultation? He will recall that it was in the 1980s that the islanders were last able to live on the islands. Surely it is time to go beyond apologies, guarantee a right of return for the Chagos islanders to the islands, and allow limited fishing and ecological tourism on the islands, rather than having a no-take marine protection area, which is the Government’s current policy.”

Mark Simmonds (Boston and Skegness, Conservative)

“As I said in my previous response, we are undertaking a review. There is no fixed timetable for the conclusion of that exercise. It is important that the review is thorough and that it consults as wide a range of partners as possible, both inside and outside Whitehall. That cannot be rushed. However, I hope to provide the House with an update on the process before the summer recess.”

Henry Smith (Crawley, Conservative)

“I thank the Minister for his answer. May I seek assurances that consultations on the future of the Chagos islands will include representations from the Chagos islands community in this country, most of whom live in my constituency?”

Mark Simmonds (Boston and Skegness, Conservative)

“I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. Significant credit should be paid to him for the assiduous way in which he represents the Chagossian community living primarily in his constituency. I confirm that we will be consulting his constituents and Chagossians who live in Manchester, as well as those who live in Mauritius and the Seychelles.”

Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife, Labour)

“As I understand it, the current arrangement with the US Administration expires at the end of 2014. Will the Minister assure the House that, notwithstanding the Whitehall role of the base, the Government will make it clear to the US Administration that we will not simply roll over that deal?”

Mark Simmonds (Boston and Skegness, Conservative)

“If I may correct the hon. Gentleman, the existing agreement runs out in December 2016. The agreement set out in 1966 stipulated that it would automatically be rolled over unless one of the parties disputes it between 2014 and 2016. We welcome the US presence in Diego Garcia, which offers a shared strategic asset for both countries, but the hon. Gentleman has alighted on some of the main issues about resettlement—first is security, and the other serious issue is the potential impact on the Untied Kingdom taxpayer, which must be looked at thoroughly.”

DR LAURA JEFFERY

Edinburgh University Researcher and Lecturer Dr Laura Jeffery contacted us recently to provide us with her article about the potential human environment, and looked at the debate surrounding the future of the islands as a whole.

“During the MPA consultation, the FCO’s consultation facilitator, Rosemary Stevenson,

did not visit the largest Chagossian community in Mauritius, but she did hold an

hour-long videoconference with the elected representatives of the Chagossian Welfare

Fund Board in Mauritius. Olivier Bancoult, the appointed chair of this Board and the

leader of the largest Chagossian organization, the Chagos Refugees Group (CRG),

responded at length. As part of his submission, he stated that:

‘We want to return to our homeland. And this is why ... in the past we presented a resettlement plan, and in our resettlement plan we mentioned ... conservation.  We made a place for conservation because we as Chagossians were the real guardians of the environment, having living there for many generations, and we don’t understand how suddenly the UK government come out with a plan to declare Chagos as a Marine Protected Area and at the same time forget that on Diego Garcia we have a huge US military base which is for defence purposes and can damage any of environment.We as Chagossian people have fundamental rights, wish to return, wish to ask you, to let you know that we people, we are not against conservation, but what we say is that our fundamental right should be taken into consideration. It’s the most important. And we don’t understand how suddenly, after so many years, how the British government had earned money on fishing licenses, giving fishing licenses to many companies to fish in the region of Chagos, where no money, even peanuts, have been spent for the

welfare of Chagossian community.’

Like Bancoult, the majority of those Chagossians who responded to the consultation

– amounting to several hundred people, mostly in Mauritius and Seychelles – opposed

all three proposed options for a no-take MPA around Chagos. A significant minority of Chagossian responses – consisting of a large proportion of responses from Chagossians in the UK, but few of those in Mauritius or Seychelles –said they would only support a no-take MPA if it incorporated exceptions for pelagic tuna and artisanal fishing by Chagos islanders. Numerically, however, the Chagossian rejection of the three proposed no-take options was insignificant in comparison to support for the proposed MPA from over quarter of a million signatories of on-line petitions organized by Avaaz, Care2, Greenpeace, and the Chagos Environment Network (CEN), a coalition of conservation organizations led by the Chagos Conservation Trust (CCT)”

DAVID SNOXELL TRIBUNE FOLLOW UP

As highlighted in last months edition, the 26^th May marked the 40^th anniversary of the final deportations of Chagossians from their islands as part of the process to “sweep and sanitise” ahead of the arrival of the US military.  APPG Coordinator David Snoxell took the opportunity to follow up on his February piece in the Left-wing magazine Tribune.  He suggested that aside from the legal avenues currently being explored, diplomacy still represented the best hope of a solution, particularly in 2015:

“2015 will be a crucial year for Chagos– not only is it the end of the coalition’s term of office, but December 2014 is the deadline by which the 1966 agreement between Britain and the United States on the use of the BIOT can be renegotiated.  And, in 2015, the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) takes place in Mauritius. Since the signing, in March, by the Queen and Commonwealth countries of the Commonwealth Charter, which sets out universal values and standards of human rights that all members must abide by, there is bound to be a sharp focus on how the United Kingdom is meeting its obligations to restoring the fundamental human rights of the Chagossian people. As many live in Mauritius, and as the Mauritian Government is committed to facilitating their return, when the sovereignty issue is resolved, this will clearly be a lively issue at CHOGM.”

Our very own Sabrina Jean recently celebrated her 40^th birthday which of course means she 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.

MARINE PROTECTION AREA (MPA) JUDICIAL REVIEW

Earlier this month the High Court in London published its ruling for the Judicial Review into the MPA which had taken place in April this year.  As many of you by now will be aware the news was not what we had been hoping for as the UK government’s 2010 decision to create the zone around the Islands was upheld by the High Court.  Lord Justice Richards and Mr Justice Mitting ruled that the MPA was “compatible with EU law”.  John Aston from the Independent newspaper reported on the disappointing announcement:

“The MPA was created by top British diplomat Colin Roberts in his role as commissioner for the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) on the instructions of the then Foreign Secretary in April 2010.

Chagossian lawyers said the moved followed British consultations with the US during which the Americans were assured the use of their base on Diego Garcia would not be adversely affected by the MPA.

Mr Roberts denied under cross-examination at the High Court that the marine park was created for the "improper purpose" of keeping the Chagossians out, as the US wanted, and said it was for environmental and conservation purposes.

Today the judges accepted his evidence. Lord Justice Richards said "a truly remarkable set of circumstances" would have to have existed for the case on improper purpose to be right, involving a long-term decision "somewhere deep in Government" to frustrate Chagossian ambitions by promoting the MPA.”

The full judgment of the controversial ruling can be found here.

Nick Harvey writing for the New Internationalist was also critical and described it as “Britain’s shame”:

“…the government’s good intentions were brought into question by a US cable published by Wikileaks in December 2010, in which the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s Director of Overseas Territories, Colin Roberts, reportedly said that the protected area should have ‘no human footprints’ or ‘Man Fridays’ and that such a reserve would make it ‘difficult, if not impossible’ for former residents to pursue their resettlement claims. A key moment in this week’s court case was when judges ruled that the cable, or copies of it held by the media, could not be used as evidence due to the Diplomatic Privileges Act, 1964.”

Long time supporter Dr Sean Carey condemned the High Court ruling and suggested the process amounted to little more than a conspiracy:

“Nevertheless, what was accepted in court is that the then Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, realised that the proposed MPA would be a real feather in his and Gordon Brown’s green cap just before the UK general election was called. Miliband overruled more cautious senior FCO officials who thought that it was likely to cause trouble internationally. The MPA was duly declared on 1 April 2010 by Colin Roberts.

The timing was very interesting. It came hours after the National Assembly in Mauritius was dissolved in preparation for the island’s general election, thus wrong-footing the local politicians, all of whom, despite political differences support Mauritius’s claim under international law to sovereignty of the Archipelago. Coincidence? Well, the judges should have dug deeply to find out the truth. In any event, Mauritius has taken its case against the MPA to a UN tribunal. It will be heard next year.

It was Karl Popper who pointed out that conspiracies do not happen as often as many people think they do. He was right. Of course, that does not mean that conspiracies do not happen at all. The judges should revisit the Archer novels.”

APPG Coordinator David Snoxell highlighted the political motives orchestrated by the ruling while writing in the Mauritius Times earlier this month:

“The documents released for the judicial review provide fascinating insights into the advice being submitted to the Foreign Secretary, leading up to the announcement of the MPA on 1 April 2010.   Officials cautioned that the results of the public consultation should be announced but not rushed, pending careful “management” of the Chagossians and Mauritius. “There was further work to do with stakeholders before establishing an MPA.”  Officials warned that “Our best defence against the legal challenges which are likely to be forthcoming is to demonstrate a conscientious and careful decision making process. A rapid decision now would undermine that... We would expect to recommend a phased introduction of a no-take MPA which would give time to put a sustainable funding package in place.”

Within hours David Milband brushed aside official advice and decided on an immediate designation of a full ‘no-take’ MPA. On 31 March senior officials made last ditch attempts to head the Foreign Secretary off. One noted, “I think this approach risks deciding (and being seen to decide) policy on the hoof for political timetabling reasons rather than on the basis of expert advice and public consultation. That’s a very different approach to the one we recommended yesterday... to be developed over time with the involvement of many stakeholders and to be based on science as well as politics.” That evening officials were instructed to prepare a statement announcing the MPA the following day just as Parliament went into the Easter recess. It sparked emergency debates in both Houses five days later.”

Erin Conway-Smith wrote a very eye-catching piece for the Global Post and laid bare the tragedy of the Chagossians and exposed the hypocrisy of the British government’s rhetoric on upholding human rights:

“A classified US government cable published by WikiLeaks quotes a British diplomat as saying in 2009 that the marine park — the world’s largest — would prevent the Chagossians from resettling on the islands, whose isolated location is strategically advantageous for the US military.

‘The British government always presents itself as a champion of human rights, but what they did on the Chagos Islands was a crime against humanity,’ said Olivier Bancoult, head of the advocacy Chagos Refugee Group based in Mauritius.”

It was also interesting to note the reaction of Argentina which was best illustrated by an article in the Buenos Aires Herald which highlighted the contradictory stance of the UK government when dealing with the Chagos Islanders compared to their position over the Falkland Islands:

“A diplomatic cable leaked by the secret-spilling site WikiLeaks said Colin Roberts, commissioner for British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), told a US official that the marine park “would keep the Chagossians from returning.” Nonetheless, the cable was not used as evidence.

Professor David Vine, an anthropologist who has studied the Chagossian case at American University in Washington DC, described the ruling as ‘outrageous.’

He told the Herald that the ‘court pretended that a diplomatic cable showing that the UK and US governments have again colluded in finding a new way to keep the Chagossians from returning to their homeland did not exist.’

Vine agrees that the UK is doing whatever it takes to hold onto its conquered territories: ‘The way the UK government has treated the Chagossians compared to the people of the Malvinas has everything to do with UK’ military and economic interests, as well as their relationship with the US, and has long smacked of racist double standards.’”

CHAGOS REFUGEES GROUP (CRG) STATEMENT

Immediately following the High Court ruling, the CRG leader Olivier Bancoult provided the following statement in response to the announcement:

“Today the High Court in London has decided that the MPA which was imposed by the last Government without the approval of the UK Parliament is not legally invalid. This is disappointing to Chagossians some of whom will no longer be able to sustain themselves by continuing our traditional fishing rights which is the only link we are allowed with our homeland since the UK unlawfully expelled us from our islands.

We are examining with our lawyers the detail of this judgment, and if advised, will seek to challenge this decision on appeal.

But there have been some very important developments which the bringing of this case has achieved in this latest legal case in our long struggle to return home.

There are three very significant matters all of which the Court considered inadmissible or irrelevant to its deliberations, but which the Coalition Government will no doubt wish to take very seriously.

First, the Court decided on purely technical grounds that the US cable, in which officials informed the USA that the MPA was the most effective long term way to exclude the Chagossian people from returning, was inadmissible. Whilst the rest of the world therefore sees what went on behind closed doors, the judges refused to consider this evidence. Chagossians believe the world is not so blinkered and even Ministers will wish to reject this discriminatory policy.

Second, the FCO surprised us all by producing its long-lost file on the so-called feasibility study which was used by the last Government as a pretext for abolishing our right of return. Ignoring the obvious feasibility of Chagossians returning home (and the superb living conditions on Diego Garcia enjoyed by 1,500 servicemen and 2,000 civilian workers) this study claimed that our return would be costly and precarious. But after years of denial of its existence we have now seen the file on this report which our advisers have examined. This examination shows that the feasibility study was not based on sound science and were exaggerated and alarmist.

Third, our advisers have now commissioned an independent review of this feasibility study by an expert on small islands, Professor Kench, who has shown how resilient these islands are and how the challenge of global warming need not prevent our return home.

Chagossians are the natural guardians of our beautiful islands. Many were in far better condition when we were forced to leave, than they are now. The military base has caused huge amounts of coral blasting, has resulted in the destruction of vegetation and the concreting over of large areas of Diego Garcia. Oils spills have seeped into the freshwater reservoirs and the coral base of the islands.

A deepwater harbour for a vast military arsenal has been created where once we used to catch fish for our sustenance.

We are in favour, as the judges recognised, of a high level of conservation in our natural paradise. Our return will not endanger the beautiful corals or remaining fish stocks in any way.

But our right to return is fundamental and will never be surrendered. It is high time that the UK made this resolution of our plight a high priority.

The outcome of this appeal does not affect our endeavours insofar as other avenues are concerned. We shall accordingly continue our legal battle and we are strongly convinced that ultimately victory will be ours!”

BIOT POLICY REVIEW- REQUEST FOR STAKEHOLDER VIEWS

The Foreign Office has finally requested feedback for its “taking stock” process which commenced following the ECHR ruling last December.  Unfortunately this critical stage of the process will only be open to feedback until 31^st July 2013.  It was a consultation which begun six months ago but which offers a window of little over a month for any feedback from us and our supporters.  I think Dr Sean Carey could possibly write a further section in his article about conspiracies.  Dr Sangeeta Ahuja from the BIOT Policy Review Team offered the following invitation on the 26^th June:

“As you may be aware, on 18 December 2012, the Foreign Secretary said he was going to take stock of our policy towards the resettlement of the British Indian Ocean Territory. Since then there has been discussion at the highest level on the future of BIOT and our evolving policy.

Together with my colleague Melanie Capelin, my role in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is to start the process of engaging all relevant stakeholders as part of the initial stages of this review. Some stakeholders will have been contacted already and we hope to hold face-to-face meetings with as wide a cross section as possible during this planning process.

We are very keen to hear all views on the key/main policy changes that interested parties would like to see. I am aware, for example, that a new feasibility study is something that a number of stakeholders would like us to put forward.  This will enable us to give Ministers options on how to proceed, based on a wide range of views. If you have views on this or other aspects of our BIOT policy, I would welcome any comments by 31 July 2013.  Please send all replies by email or hard copy to the addresses in the email signature below.  Given the wide range of stakeholders we are approaching, however, we may not be able to reply to individual letters.”

The BIOT policy team can be contacted here.

ADAM BURTON

Last month Something Else paper’s Adam Burton very generously invited our supporters to join him and colleagues for a series of screenings of the John Pilger’s “Stealing a Nation” documentary in Hackney in East London. 

There is now just one final chance to participate in this unique opportunity which will be taking place on Tuesday 2^nd July at 7.30pm.  Further information can be obtained by visiting this website for further information.  Special thanks again to Adam Burton for facilitating these screenings and we hope the Chagos food recipes went down well.

Thank you as always for your continued interest and support,

Clency Lebrasse (Update compiler)

Comment: We must be allowed to return home to the Chagos Islands

This post was originally published on the Politics.co.uk news website on 27th June 2013 and can be found here

Many believe that the Chagos Islands need protection. Those of us who call it home wholeheartedly agree with them.

For many years, the Chagossians were the guardians of these beautiful islands in the Indian Ocean. We grew our own food, fished from the sea and enjoyed a way of life that had sustained our ancestors for generations.

Before our expulsion from the islands in 1968 by the British government, to make way for a US military base, the islands were in pristine condition – far better than they are today.

The military base set up on Diego Garcia has been responsible for causing significant damage: much of the island’s vegetation has been destroyed, large areas of the island have been concreted over, a deep-water harbour for the vast military arsenal has been created, oil spills have seeped into the freshwater reservoirs and the coral base of the islands, whilst industrial-scale fishing of tuna from the local waters has left stocks depleted.

Over the last 46 years, many of us have set-up what we have continued to hope would be temporary homes in Mauritius and the United Kingdom. Witnessing the destruction of our islands from afar during that time has upset us deeply, as has the refusal by successive British governments to allow us to return to the islands, even just to visit and tend to the graves of our ancestors.

We are in favour, as the judges recognised earlier this month, of a high level of conservation in our natural paradise. Our crucial role in guaranteeing this was recognised by a number of leading conservation agencies at the Chagos Regagne Conference in 2011, when they signed a declaration in favour of our return.

In addition, an independent feasibility study we commissioned supports what we have argued all along, that there is no reason that we should not return; our presence will not endanger the beautiful corals or remaining fish stocks.

It’s for this reason, we find ourselves in the awkward position of having to oppose a Marine Protection Area (MPA), not because we do not want to preserve our islands and the waters around them, but because we know that it is just one of a number of strategies aimed at preventing us from returning to the islands – a hunch which has since been born out through the cables recently revealed by WikiLeaks.

We find the suggestion that this is the real reason for the MPA far more compelling than we do the argument that our return would be detrimental to the island, particularly when 1,500 servicemen and 2,000 civilian workers currently live there.

Regardless of the legality or illegality of the MPA, or the recent rulings which deemed the Wikileaks information inadmissible in court, we know the truth.  And we will never stop believing that as the indigenous population of the islands, we are their natural custodians.

With the re-negotiation of the lease of our islands due to take place between Great Britain and the United States over the next 18 months, we look forward to participating in the discussions around what will happen to the care of our islands and what remains of their natural beauty, in the coming years.

Sabrina Jean is chair of Chagos Refugees GroupUK Branch and chair of the UK Chagos Support Association. Follow @yandangael @ChagosUK