UK Chagos Support Blog

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has submitted a briefing document to the government outlining its support for a Marine Protected Area (MPA) around the Chagos islands. As they claim to represent "over 1,000 government and NGO member organizations," the IUCN's submision is chilling reading for anybody who believes in the Chagossians' right to return.

The paper begins by stating: "The Chagos Archipelago is one of the last remaining places on earth where marine ecosystems and species function relatively unmodified and unperturbed. This makes it invaluable not only as a means for replenishment of other, more degraded, parts of the Indian Ocean, but also as a benchmark – and a beacon of hope – for the world... Placing the Chagos archipelago [...] under a robust and unambiguous protection and conservation framework would realize this potential, and the area would be held in trust for the citizens of the United Kingdom, countries around the Indian Ocean and the world community."

So far, so so. The protection of the Chagos islands' environment and marine life is something that everybody can subscribe to, not least of all the Chagossians themselves, who have repeatedly made clear their commitment to helping safeguard their homeland for the benefit of future generations. However, on page 3 the report reveals a darker side to itself:

"The absence of human populations is the main reason for the present conservation status of Chagos as a rare surviving example of nature as it should be, where human pressures do not conflict with environmental needs and lead to degradation and impoverishment. Chagos is, with the exception of Diego Garcia, uninhabited, a status upheld through a 2008 House of Lords ruling which found no right of return on the part of the Chagossians. Because of this Chagos provides us with a scientific benchmark for environmental health, and an area to help us understand and deal with such problems as pollution, loss of biodiversity and climate change."

Nature as it should be? So the IUCN is saying that the forced expulsion of thousands of Chagos islanders in the 1960s and 1970s is justifiable on the grounds that it stopped "human pressures" (i.e. peoples' lives) interfering with environmental needs? As well as being callous in the extreme, this passage shows the shocking extent to which some scientists have succumbed to the government's false dichotomy between (1) resettlement of the Chagos islands and (2) environmental protecton. The two are NOT mutually exclusive.

It seems that those elements of the scientific community who are willing to cut the Chagossians out of the frame are showing themselves to be highly organised and unphased by what the consequences of their unqualified support for an MPA might mean for the indigenous people of the archipelago they profess to wish to protect; it's crucial that the supporters of the Chagossians are equally as vocal.

Here, again, are the contact details you can use to respond to the Foreign Office's consultation on the MPA issue and tell them that they won't succeed in marginalising the Chagossians:

(i) Write to:
BIOT marine protected area consultation
Overseas Territories Directorate
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
King Charles Street
London
SW1A 2AH

(ii) E-mail your response to: biotmpaconsultation@fco.gov.uk

The IUCN itself can be contacted via its website.

Opposition to the UK government's plans to set up a Marine Protected Area (MPA) around the Chagos islands have come under further criticism - this time from the government of Mauritius. The AFP news agency is reporting that the Mauritian PM, Navin Chandra Ramgoolam, raised his concerns with Gordon Brown at the recent Commonwealth summit in Trinidad and Tobago.

The Mauritian government claims sovereignty over the Chagos archipelago and so it is perhaps unsurprising that Mauritius should seek to find fault with UK policy towards the islands. Nevertheless, the wording of Mr Ramgoolam's assault can be seen as significant:

"During a meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, I made it clear to him that discussions on a protected marine parc around the Chagos ignoring exiled Chagossians' right of return and Mauritius' sovereign right over the archipelago are out of the question," Ramgoolam said.

Mr Ramgoolam's statement adds a new layer to the existing criticism, voiced by the UK Chagos Support Association and others, that the UK government's insistence on separating the issue of environmental protection from the wider context is bizarre, underhand, and unsustainable. Of course, the relationship between the Chagossians and the Mauritian government has a long and complicated history. However, this latest intervention is welcome in that it provides yet another example of how isolated the UK government has become on the MPA issue and on the question of the Chagossians' right of return.

The FCO needs to go back to the drawing board on the MPA idea. It should come back with a credible consultation process that would include the Chagossians and set the issue of environmental protection alongside the Chagossians' right of return; it's current approach is rapidly being exposed as sneaky and self-serving and seems to be finding favour in precious few corners.

Just a quick post to remind people that they can follow the UK Chagos Support Association on Facebook and on Twitter. Please do follow us via these media, as the more noise we can make about the Chagossians and their campaign to return home - the better!

PS - people are still encouraged to get in touch with the FCO (details below) as part of their "consultation" on establishing a Marine Protection Area around the Chagos islands. We mustn't let the government succeed in using the environment as a way of burying the Chagossians' campaign; everybody agrees on the importance of protecting the Chagos archipelago's environment, it's just that some of us think that the indigenous people of the islands should be the ones doing the protecting!

Further to yesterday's post, the Foreign Office has given detailed instructions on how to respond to its consultation on whether or not to establish a Marine Protected Area (MPA) around the Chagos islands. One passage of the Consultation Document requires highlighting:

"Any decision to establish a marine protected area would be taken in the context of the Government’s current policy on the Territory, following the decision of the House of Lords in R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2008] UKHL 61 that the British Indian Ocean Territory (Constitution) Order 2004 and the British Indian Ocean Territory (Immigration) Order 2004 are lawful; i.e., there is no right of abode in the Territory and all visitors need a permit before entering the Territory. Access to a part of the Territory is also restricted under our Treaty obligations with the US. It is the Government’s provisional view, therefore, that we would not establish a permanent research facility in any part of the Territory. Any decision to establish a marine protected area would not affect the UK Government’s commitment to cede the Territory to Mauritius when it is no longer needed for defence purposes."

This passage reveals a serious flaw in the consultation process: any proposal for the environmental protection of Chagos that includes the establishment of a permanent settlement is already off the table. The government is simply refusing to even consider this. Therefore, the consultation is effectively closed off to anybody who believes that the best way to protect the environment of the Chagos archipelago is to allow the indigenous population of the islands - the Chagossians - to return and be able to act as stewards.

By automatically dismissing any proposal for environmental protection that includes a permanent settlement - Chagossian or not - the FCO is effectively admitting just how thin its commitment to the environmental protection of Chagos really is. The government is openly and unashamedly prioritising a strict and rigid adherence to its "no right of abode" mantra over finding a pragmatic solution to the serious problem of environmental degradation in the region. Surely, the government is beginning proceedings from completely the wrong starting point?

This cynical move from the FCO must not be allowed to go unchallenged. Everybody agrees that the environment of the Chagos islands should be protected, but it is completely wrong for the government to conduct that discussion in a way that excludes the Chagossians. Rather, the case for resettlement must be made. After all, who better than the Chagossians, the indigenous people of the archipelago, to care for and protect the environment there?

If you would like to respond to the Foreign Office's consultation and tell them that they won't succeed in marginalising the Chagossians, then here's how to do so:

(i) Write to:
BIOT marine protected area consultation
Overseas Territories Directorate
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
King Charles Street
London
SW1A 2AH

(ii) E-mail your response to: biotmpaconsultation@fco.gov.uk

You can also comment on Foreign Secretary David Miliband's own blog by following this link.

The consultation period will run until 12 February 2010.

The government's consultation on the creation of a Marine Protected Area (MPA) around the Chagos islands was recently raised in Parliament, when Andrew George MP asked Chris Bryant (the current minister with responsibility for Britain's Overseas Territories) which "stakeholders" were to be consulted as part of the process. Mr Bryant replied that the government was "strongly encouraging as many people as possible to participate in the consultation" and also implied that the creation of an MPA was not a foregone conclusion. See here for the full question/answer.

Of course, the environmental protection of Chagos would be greatly assisted if the Chagossians themselves were allowed to return. In the words of Olivier Bancoult: "Chagossians will be the best custodians of the environment." It's therefore important that the issues of resettlement and environmental protection are considered together, not as issues divorced from one another.

The UK Chagos Support Association has previously called for the government to stop using issues like the environment as justifications for its policy of opposing resettlement: the truth is that the environment of Chagos would be best served by the Chagossians being allowed to return to their homeland and care for it in the way that they used to do before their exile.

On Wednesday 22 October the Law Lords decided by a majority of three-to-two to allow the Government's appeal against the Chagos islanders.

In short, it means that the highest court in the land has decided the 'Orders in Council' used secretly to renew the islanders' eviction in 2004 (after they had won the right to return four years earlier) were indeed legal, despite the High Court and Court of Appeal having said they were not.

For the Chagossians it's a devastating blow, because it leaves them with few other places to turn in their legal battle to get home. They can still take their case to the European Court of Human Rights, but as Matthew Parris wrote in The Times, "a Whitehall that has successfully denied them justice for a quarter of a century will find the ingenuity to continue blocking their return. Everybody knows why. It's the Americans."

Apart from that they can work to persuade the Government to do the right thing and let them return. The Foreign Affairs Committee is on their side, saying in a report this summer that there is a "strong moral case" for resettlement, and describing the Government's reasoning for not allowing it as "less than convincing". But with David Miliband repeating the tired old nonsense about adequate compensation having been paid and that it's all very sad but let's just move on, appealing to the Government's better nature doesn't look hugely promising.

But the islanders are not giving up. Olivier Bancoult, head of the Chagos Refugees Group, said in response to the decision: "This is not the end. What we are fighting is a just and noble cause."

One final point: the decision is not just terrible news for the islanders, it has scary implications for us all. This letter to The Times from a Hungarian immigrant to the UK picks out some of the reasons why.

'Returning Home', the strategy for resettlement of the Chagos islands, has been completed.

The study concluded that there are no valid environmental or economic reasons standing in the way of the resettlement of a small number of Chagossian families on the outer islands of the archipelago.

The document can be downloaded here.

It was put together by the UK Chagos Support Association and the Chagos Refugees Group with the help of Dr John Howell, and with funding from the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust.