As the bombs
rained down on Baghdad in March and April 2003 I’m sure many of us were glued to
our TV sets, unable to pull away from the unfolding horror. If you were among
the entranced you may vaguely recall the occasional mention of the US military
base, known as ‘Camp Justice’, on Diego Garcia from which many of the bombers
had flown to deliver their deadly cargo. References to the base were fleeting at
best, a brevity which contradicts the significance of the base’s history to
anybody seeking to understand and perhaps even challenge British imperialism.
Diego Garcia is
the largest island in the Chagos Archipelago, a chain of coral islands in the
Indian Ocean. Although the islands were known to Arab seafarers, they were
“discovered” by the Portuguese, who gave Diego Garcia its current name, in the
Sixteenth Century, although they didn’t settle. The island was settled by French
colonists, who brought with them slaves to work the land, in 1776. The colony
was established on condition that they also set-up a leper colony there.
British colonists
took control of the islands in the aftermath of the Napoleonic war, freeing the
slaves who took control of the plantations and established their own economy.
The freed slaves lived peacefully on the islands, occasionally travelling to
Mauritius to trade and developed their own distinctive culture and Creole
language. This state of affairs continued until the 1960s when their way of life
was brought to an abrupt halt by the actions of the British government.
The US had decided
that they wanted a military base in the Indian Ocean. There first choice had
been the Aldabra Atoll. Although this was uninhabited, the then British Prime
Minister was concerned that the presence of a rare breed of turtle on the island
might lead to controversy were the US to set up a base there. Instead, Diego
Garcia was offered, even though it was inhabited.
Britain ensured
that it maintained control of the Chagos Archipelago by ensuring that it was
incorporated into the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) when Mauritius
became independent. Carving Mauritius up in this way was a violation of UN
Declaration 1514 which stated the inalienable right of colonial peoples to
independence and Resolution 2066 of 1965, which Britain never signed, which
required the UK to “take no action which would dismember the territory of
Mauritius and violate [its] territorial integrity”. (Incidentally the BIOT
originally also included Aldabra, Farquar and Desroches which have subsequently
been reclaimed by the Seychelles.)
Although Diego
Garcia is ostensibly British and hosts a token British military presence, the
island was secretly leased to the Americans for 50 years in 1966. This was done
in exchange for a discount on the purchase of millions of pounds of Polaris
missiles by the UK. This meant that the payment could be concealed and allowed
the deal to go through without being discussed by the US Congress, the British
Parliament or the UN.
The US didn’t only
want the island itself, they also wanted it and the archipelago “swept and
sanitised” which meant the removal of the population, who by then numbered
around 2,000. This was achieved in various ways, none of them particularly
admirable. Some Chagossians found themselves unable to return to the archipelago
after a routine visit to Mauritius, others were threatened with bombing if they
failed to leave. The more stubborn were simply loaded onto ships and taken to a
prison on the Seychelles. In one particularly deplorable incident around 1,000
of the islanders dogs were gassed using the exhaust fumes from military vehicles
in order to encourage the Chagossians to leave.
Most of the
population ended up in Mauritius where they found themselves condemned to a life
of poverty, destitution and racial discrimination. Most were given nothing by
the British government, although a handful who held a sit-in on the ship which
had brought them to the island were rewarded with small payments from the High
Commission. Mauritius was already racked by overcrowding and high unemployment
and unsurprisingly the newcomers were not exactly made to feel welcome. As a
result of their plight rates of alcoholism, drug use and even suicide were
chronic. Many of the islanders died, whether at their own hand or from
malnutrition.
Not content to
simply accept the injustice done to them, many Chagossians have struggled to
have their rights recognized. In 1973 the British government provided the
Mauritian government with £3650,000 to aid the exiles. It was originally
intended that some of this would be used to resettle them on farmland, but there
were extensive disagreements and the Chagossians were desperate for the money.
Ultimately the resettlement plan was abandoned and the money was disbursed.
Although some were able to obtain better housing, many had been forced to borrow
money and had to use their share to pay back the debt, meaning they were little
better of, if at all. In 1982 the Chagossians were finally allotted more money
by the British government. The sum of £4 million was provided as a “full and
final settlement”, but to obtain this the exiles had to give up their right to
return to their homes. In May 2002 they were granted British passports although
some have suggested that this is a “poisoned chalice” intended to weaken claims
for further compensation and for the right of return.
Alongside the
expulsion itself, there were extensive Foreign Office machinations to keep the
sordid affair secret. Key to this is to what historian Mark Curtis has described
as “[t]he giant lie at the heart of British policy... that the Chagossians were
never permanent inhabitants of the islands but simply ‘contract labourers.’” In
a secret note to Prime Minister Harold Wilson in 1969, Foreign Secretary Michael
Stewart noted that it would be helpful “if we can present any move as a change
of employment for contract workers rather than as a population resettlement.”
This was a fiction maintained by successive governments until recently. In fact,
as the government now admits, there was in fact a settled population and many of
the Chagossians were fifth-generation islanders. Lawyer for the islanders
Richard Gifford argues, based on his examination of various Foreign Office
documents relating to the expulsion, that all the mandarins behind this cover-up
were concerned about was that they might be caught and that, as far as they were
concerned, the effect on the people who they had exiled was essentially
irrelevant.
The full extent of
this cover-up didn’t come to light until Chagossians brought a case over their
expulsion to the High Court. The Court ruled in 2000 in a landmark decision,
that the expulsion of the Chagossians was unlawful. The order that had expelled
them should, the court held, be changed immediately, allowing those born on the
island and their children to return and resettle. However the British government
insisted that its treaty obligations with the US must be fulfilled, meaning the
right of return did not extend to Diego Garcia itself.
The Foreign and
Commonwealth Office commissioned a feasibility study into resettlement which
reported in June 2002. They have sought to use this as evidence that
resettlement of the island is infeasible. However Harvard resettlement expert
Jonathan Jenness described the study's conclusions as “erroneous in every
assertion” and also criticised the lack of data, lack of objectivity, and a
complete failure to consult with the Chagossians themselves. Key to the
government’s case was that the report demonstrated that the consequences of
climate change made resettlement impossible. Tam Dayell MP noted, however, that
the report judged that these consequences couldn’t be quantified at the present
time leading him to conclude that the governments inferences vis-à-vis the
practical ramification of climate change on resettlement had “crept in from
somewhere else.”
The presence of
the largest US military base outside the continental United States, which the US
government are currently seeking to extend permission for until 2016 would seem
to discredit suggestions that the archipelago is about to disappear beneath the
waves. This conclusion has only been reinforced in light of the Indian Ocean
Tsunami which devastated so many islands in the area, but left Diego Garcia
essentially untouched as a result of fortuitous ocean topography.
Following the
publication of the report, there were no major developments around the issue for
two years until June 10 2004. This was ‘Super Thursday’ and saw European, local
and GLA elections. It was also the day selected to have the Queen sign two
Orders in Council (the British Indian Ocean Territory (Legislation) Order 2004
and the British Indian Ocean Territory (Constitution) Order 2004) which would
prevent the Chagossians from setting foot on the islands where they were born.
Orders in Council are executive powers and become law once signed by the
Monarch, requiring no consultation or debate. John Pilger has remarked that
dictatorships operate in a similar fashion, albeit without the “quaint ritual”.
Given the method
selected to achieve this aim and the date on which the government chose to do
it, it seems difficult to avoid the conclusion that this was another government
attempt to “bury bad news”. The use of Orders in Council has attracted
considerable controversy. Jeremy Corbyn, a committed advocate of the rights of
the Chagossians instigated a Parliamentary debate on the issue, which saw the
government’s position attacked by members of all three main parties and the
Scottish National Party (SNP).
Apparently angered
by the British government’s decision, Mauritius has hinted that it may try to
take the UK to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at the Hague in order to
reassert its sovereignty over the islands. To do so would require Mauritius to
leave the Commonwealth, which Mauritian PM Paul Berenger has said he is prepared
to do. Britain sought to prevent Mauritius from taking the case to the ICJ and
when Berenger came to the UK last July both Jack Straw and Tony Blair were
“unable” to meet him. The UK’s handling of the issue drew criticism from
Commonwealth General-Secretary Don McKinnon. Indeed The Times reported
that he “all but accused Britain of behaving like an old-fashioned colonial
power”.
British treatment
of Berenger compares poorly with the performance of George W. Bush who met with
the Mauritian PM (as did Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice) when he visited the
US recently. Berenger described the president as “receptive” to the views of the
Mauritian government and noted that he “took a positive attitude to this whole
issue”. What we are to make of our government being out done by George Bush in
the diplomacy stakes is not entirely clear.
Having been
granted British passports in 2002 a number of Chagossians have travelled to the
UK hoping to find work and accommodation. They were hardly greeted with opened
arms, but local councils were forced by the courts to provide support for them
and there are now small communities in Surrey and Sussex. The government has
refused throughout to provide financial aid to the affected councils.
The plight of the
Chagossians has continued for almost forty-years now, yet remains scandalously
unknown, even within the ranks of the British anti-war and anti-imperialist
movements. John Pilger’s recent documentary on the issue shown on ITV in October
last year has gone some way towards rectifying this state of affairs, but the
primary task for anyone concerned to help the Chagossians and rectify the
injustice which has been done to them, remains awareness raising.
The UK Chagos
Support Association is the pre-eminent organisation campaigning on the issue in
the UK and is supported by Jeremy Corbyn and Tam Dayell among others. In
Mauritius the issue has been picked up by the government who regard the
archipelago as Mauritian territory, although leader of the Chagossians Olivier
Bancoult has stated publicly that he is unconcerned by Mauritius’ sovereignty
claims, apparently because they have expressed only a minimal interest in the
plight of the islanders.
Mauritian
socialist group Lalit (‘struggle’) are also active on the matter and are
planning a peace flotilla to visit the islands in order to express their
demands, but also as a way of generating publicity. As ever, however, the most
consistent campaigners have been the victims, many of them now elderly who hold
regular protests and recently even threatened to begin a hunger strike outside
the British High Commission.
The story of the
Chagos Archipelago should provide ample evidence to disabuse any rational person
of the fundamental decency of the British Government. The relatively small
population involved may have counted against the Chagossians, but hardly seems
relevant. The murder of Kenneth Bigley by Islamic extremists in Iraq was
universally viewed with horror and disgust, with good reason, anyone suggesting
that this was unimportant or even acceptable simply because he was merely one
person would be dismissed out of hand. The same logic applies here. The
archipelago’s central role as a staging post US imperialism (planes involved in
any attack on Iran are likely to fly out of Diego Garcia) can only underline the
importance of the issue.
This should be a
national scandal. It’s up to us to make sure that it becomes one.
Richard
Hindes is a student and activist particularly
involved in the anti-war movement.
He maintains a
blog (
http://disillusionedkid.blogspot.com ) and can be contacted as
disillusioned_kid_AT_yahoo.co.uk
