Wednesday, February 03, 2010
We've moved
From now on you'll find the UK Chagos Support Association blog at chagossupport.org.uk. Please update your bookmarks and RSS feeds! There'll be no more posts here and archived posts will eventually be deleted to avoid duplication. Enjoy the new site!
Monday, February 01, 2010
Marine Protection Trust petition available in French and Spanish
The Marine Education Trust's excellent petition calling for the Government to make provision for the Chagos islanders' needs and human rights when deciding on its preferred option for a marine protected area in Chagos has been translated into French and Spanish!
Thanks to the person who brought this to our attention by commenting on a previous blog post. So please circulate to any French- or Spanish-speakers that may be interested.
Merci beaucoup y muchos gracias!
http://www.tlaxcala.es/detail_artistes.asp?lg=es&reference=388
Thanks to the person who brought this to our attention by commenting on a previous blog post. So please circulate to any French- or Spanish-speakers that may be interested.
Merci beaucoup y muchos gracias!
http://www.tlaxcala.es/detail_artistes.asp?lg=es&reference=388
UK Chagos Support Association AGM resolves to keep fighting in 2010
The UK Chagos Support Association yesterday held its annual general meeting in Pimlico, London. Representatives of several Chagossian groups were in attendance, along with dozens of their supporters - students, professionals, academics, journalists, lawyers, campaigners, teachers and all manner of other concerned individuals - who had travelled the length and breadth of Britain to attend (some from farther afield!). The meeting heard updates from the various people who donate their time and effort campaigning for justice for the Chagossians, and the general mood was one of optimism and determination.
David Snoxell, coordinator of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Chagos Islands, provided an overview of the work that was being done to further the Chagossians' cause within the UK Parliament and the world of politics more broadly. Much has already been achieved in this area, with the Chagos Islands APPG ranking as one of the most active cross-party groups in existence - not to mention one of the most committed. Nevertheless Mr Snoxell was clear that more would need to be done in order to cajole the UK Government into taking decisive action over the issue, especially with a general election looming. Public pressure will need to be brought to bear if politicians are to take the Chagossians' concerns seriously, which is a responsibility that all concerned citizens must ultimately help to shoulder.
News was also forthcoming from the Chagossians' long-serving legal advisor Richard Gifford, who provided an update on the Chagossians' impending European Court of Human Rights hearing. Proceedings can be expected to get under way in Strasbourg later this year, and a decision need not follow long after. However, the exact timetabling of the ECtHR case has yet to be decided. The anxiety of having the Chagossians' future placed yet again in the hands of judges is tempered only by the skill and commitment that their legal team have shown over the past decade. The Chagossians' case is a robust one and a favourable decision in Strasbourg could spell the beginning of the end for their 40 year struggle for justice.
However, with all of the understandable focus on Westminster and Strasbourg, it is easy to lose sight of the other important work that the UK Chagos Support Association is involved with. It was reported at the AGM how the organisation had made several payments to Chagossian families living in Mauritius to finance home renovations such as structural repairs, proper roofing and other basic improvements - something that put the day's events into context. The high politics of UK foreign policy or UK-USA-Mauritian international relations are important, as are the issues of environmental protection that are currently being debated so hotly, but it would be wrong to forget the human face of the Chagossian cause.
The Chagossian people themselves still live with the effects of their exile, which happened 40 years ago, and so it should come as no surprise that it is the Chagossian people themselves who show the most determination to keep on fighting for their rights in 2010. If 2010 does turn out to be the year that the Chagossians have their right to return restored, it will be because of their tirelessness and tenacious refusal to let go of what's right.
David Snoxell, coordinator of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Chagos Islands, provided an overview of the work that was being done to further the Chagossians' cause within the UK Parliament and the world of politics more broadly. Much has already been achieved in this area, with the Chagos Islands APPG ranking as one of the most active cross-party groups in existence - not to mention one of the most committed. Nevertheless Mr Snoxell was clear that more would need to be done in order to cajole the UK Government into taking decisive action over the issue, especially with a general election looming. Public pressure will need to be brought to bear if politicians are to take the Chagossians' concerns seriously, which is a responsibility that all concerned citizens must ultimately help to shoulder.
News was also forthcoming from the Chagossians' long-serving legal advisor Richard Gifford, who provided an update on the Chagossians' impending European Court of Human Rights hearing. Proceedings can be expected to get under way in Strasbourg later this year, and a decision need not follow long after. However, the exact timetabling of the ECtHR case has yet to be decided. The anxiety of having the Chagossians' future placed yet again in the hands of judges is tempered only by the skill and commitment that their legal team have shown over the past decade. The Chagossians' case is a robust one and a favourable decision in Strasbourg could spell the beginning of the end for their 40 year struggle for justice.
However, with all of the understandable focus on Westminster and Strasbourg, it is easy to lose sight of the other important work that the UK Chagos Support Association is involved with. It was reported at the AGM how the organisation had made several payments to Chagossian families living in Mauritius to finance home renovations such as structural repairs, proper roofing and other basic improvements - something that put the day's events into context. The high politics of UK foreign policy or UK-USA-Mauritian international relations are important, as are the issues of environmental protection that are currently being debated so hotly, but it would be wrong to forget the human face of the Chagossian cause.
The Chagossian people themselves still live with the effects of their exile, which happened 40 years ago, and so it should come as no surprise that it is the Chagossian people themselves who show the most determination to keep on fighting for their rights in 2010. If 2010 does turn out to be the year that the Chagossians have their right to return restored, it will be because of their tirelessness and tenacious refusal to let go of what's right.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Green PPC Tony Juniper departs from party's previous policy on Chagossians' right to return
+++ Please click here for a related post on the The Guardian's coverage of the Chagossians - namely, the response from the Marine Education Trust's Director Tara Hooper +++
Following on from the previous post (below; please read!), there are also significant concerns surrounding today's The Guardian article from Tony Juniper - Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Cambridge. The Greens have traditionally been strong supporters of the Chagossians' right to return, and leader Caroline Lucas last year wrote to the UK Chagos Support Association committing herself to backing the Chagossians' campaign for justice.
It is a real shock, then, to see Mr Juniper - perhaps unwittingly - supporting plans that actually put in jeopardy the Chagossians' campaign to return home. From the article, Juniper is clearly completely supportive of the Chagos Environment Network's proposals to impose a no-take marine reserve in the Chagos islands - that is, a reserve where all forms of fishing are comprehensively banned. As has previously been pointed out, such a ban would be disastrous for the Chagossians by making any future resettlement programme completely unsustainable. Banning indigenous people from fishing their own waters is simply not acceptable.
To his credit, Juniper does attempt to qualify his support for a no-take marine reserve towards the tail end of his article by saying:
"Irrespective of arguments about fish, the protection of the natural features of this outstanding area must be achieved with justice for the Chagossian people. The nine conservation groups who have proposed that the British government should act to protect the islands have suggested that any conservation designation should be made "without prejudice" to future decisions about the people returning. This would mean that if that Chagossians do finally come back, that the arrangements being considered now might be reopened."
So a no-take marine reserve should be established but then tinkered with if the Chagossians win their court battle to return? There are several problems with this position.
Firstly, any right-minded humanitarian - let alone a Green Party PPC - should be categorically supporting and campaigning for the Chagossians' right to return to be restored through political means. They should not be hiding behind ongoing court proceedings, leaving the decision entirely in the hands of judges. Let's not forget that the UK Government already has at its disposal the power to restore the Chagossians' rights; it does not need to wait for a European Court of Human Rights decision to do this.
Secondly, as the Marine Education Trust's Tara Hooper has averred, it is also problematic to claim that a no-take MPA could simply be altered if and when the Chagossians are allowed to return: "Viewing an MPA as something that is transitory, that can be modified as circumstances change, sends entirely the wrong message and, again, has implications for the long term success of the initiative." Therefore, not only would it be wrong to erect yet another hurdle for the Chagossians to overcome if the ECtHR decides in their favour (haven't they faced enough obstacles over the past 40 years?), but this suggestion also severely enervates the whole purpose of an MPA in the first place.
It is worrying to think that the Green Party might be changing its tune on the issue of the Chagossians' right to return. Surely, politicians of all stripes should be insisting that the FCO makes satisfactory provision for the needs of the Chagossians in its final MPA plans.
For the FCO to listen, however, the Chagossians' concerns must be noisily and forcefully kept high on the agenda. This, in turn, requires more than just lip service.
Following on from the previous post (below; please read!), there are also significant concerns surrounding today's The Guardian article from Tony Juniper - Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for Cambridge. The Greens have traditionally been strong supporters of the Chagossians' right to return, and leader Caroline Lucas last year wrote to the UK Chagos Support Association committing herself to backing the Chagossians' campaign for justice.
It is a real shock, then, to see Mr Juniper - perhaps unwittingly - supporting plans that actually put in jeopardy the Chagossians' campaign to return home. From the article, Juniper is clearly completely supportive of the Chagos Environment Network's proposals to impose a no-take marine reserve in the Chagos islands - that is, a reserve where all forms of fishing are comprehensively banned. As has previously been pointed out, such a ban would be disastrous for the Chagossians by making any future resettlement programme completely unsustainable. Banning indigenous people from fishing their own waters is simply not acceptable.
To his credit, Juniper does attempt to qualify his support for a no-take marine reserve towards the tail end of his article by saying:
"Irrespective of arguments about fish, the protection of the natural features of this outstanding area must be achieved with justice for the Chagossian people. The nine conservation groups who have proposed that the British government should act to protect the islands have suggested that any conservation designation should be made "without prejudice" to future decisions about the people returning. This would mean that if that Chagossians do finally come back, that the arrangements being considered now might be reopened."
So a no-take marine reserve should be established but then tinkered with if the Chagossians win their court battle to return? There are several problems with this position.
Firstly, any right-minded humanitarian - let alone a Green Party PPC - should be categorically supporting and campaigning for the Chagossians' right to return to be restored through political means. They should not be hiding behind ongoing court proceedings, leaving the decision entirely in the hands of judges. Let's not forget that the UK Government already has at its disposal the power to restore the Chagossians' rights; it does not need to wait for a European Court of Human Rights decision to do this.
Secondly, as the Marine Education Trust's Tara Hooper has averred, it is also problematic to claim that a no-take MPA could simply be altered if and when the Chagossians are allowed to return: "Viewing an MPA as something that is transitory, that can be modified as circumstances change, sends entirely the wrong message and, again, has implications for the long term success of the initiative." Therefore, not only would it be wrong to erect yet another hurdle for the Chagossians to overcome if the ECtHR decides in their favour (haven't they faced enough obstacles over the past 40 years?), but this suggestion also severely enervates the whole purpose of an MPA in the first place.
It is worrying to think that the Green Party might be changing its tune on the issue of the Chagossians' right to return. Surely, politicians of all stripes should be insisting that the FCO makes satisfactory provision for the needs of the Chagossians in its final MPA plans.
For the FCO to listen, however, the Chagossians' concerns must be noisily and forcefully kept high on the agenda. This, in turn, requires more than just lip service.
Marine Education Trust responds to Guardian coverage of Chagos
Following on from recent coverage in The Times, The Guardian newspaper has today printed two pieces about the Chagos islands and the proposals for a marine protected area in the region. One of these was written by The Guardian's own Jenny Aldred, whilst the second was authored by the Green Party's Tony Juniper (PPC for Cambridge).
Ms Aldred's article was better than that from Frank Pope at The Times, in that it did at least make some mention of the Chagossians' campaign for justice; Aldred also quoted longstanding supporter of the Chagossians and Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group, Jeremy Corbyn MP. Nevertheless there were some significant flaws with its overall content: The Guardian stopped short of taking a strong and principled editorial stance on the issue, for example.
These concerns have been eloquently and forcefully aired by the Marine Education Trust's Director, Tara Hooper, whose letter to The Guardian is reproduced in full below:
"Your coverage of the campaign to create a marine protected area in Chagos is much more balanced than that I have seen recently in other national newspapers, and I am cheered to see this.
However, one thing to which you do not refer is that the Chagos Environment Network petition itself makes no mention at all of the Chagos islanders, their pending case with the European Court of Human rights, or the fact that the full no-take option advocated would allow no means for resettled islanders to use their marine resources for subsistence or income generation.
The CEN campaign also fails to mention that the UK Government has agreed to ultimately cede sovereignty of the archipelago to the Government of Mauritius, who are currently refusing to engage in the MPA development process. This too is a major stumbling block to the creation of a full no-take reserve, as the fishery licences to which Mauritius is entitled cannot be unilaterally revoked, so a full no-take zone cannot be declared without their cooperation.
A petition which asks the public to endorse a campaign but fails to fully inform them of the issue involved is misleading, to say the least, and cannot be considered an accurate reflection of the view they would have expressed had they been fully informed.
Jessica Aldred’s article lists the three options for the MPA given in the FCO consultation document. These options arose following a workshop commissioned by the FCO and held at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton (NOCS) in August 2009. The Marine Resources Assessment Group (MRAG) was invited to that workshop, which perhaps explains why two of the three options allow for, effectively, business as usual for pelagic fishing. That there was not a fourth option proposed, that of zonation within reef areas to allow for sustainable fisheries by resettled islanders, is perhaps because no representatives from the Chagossian community were invited.
One member of the organising committee and other scientists due to attend the NOCS workshop boycotted it for this very reason.
That this fourth option is necessary was the outcome of a second scientific workshop, held at Royal Holloway on 7 January, to discuss the socio-economic issues related to the creation of an MPA, and to which Chagossian representatives and the Government of Mauritius were invited.
The outcome of this second workshop reflects the belief of conservationists that the aggressive campaign for full no-take protection is actually harmful to the long-term prospects for conservation of Chagos, as well as being morally questionable (for the reasons already outlined above).
MPAs fail through lack of engagement, be that the lack of political will to properly manage and enforce the MPA, or through a lack of community ownership. By failing to engage with the Chagossians or the Government of Mauritius, the current approach to the MPA designation is doing a great job of alienating those who will govern and live alongside the MPA in the future, threatening any chance of success in the long term.
A Pew employee has recently said “The CEN position is that if the government decides to designate the Chagos as an MPA, this should be done “without prejudice” to any future changes in circumstances regarding the islands, meaning that any conservation arrangements could be modified if necessary.” Viewing an MPA as something that is transitory, that can be modified as circumstances change, sends entirely the wrong message and, again, has implications for the long term success of the initiative.
Given that the European Court of Human Rights may make their recommendations on resettlement as early as this spring, it may prove necessary to make modifications to the MPA before the ink on the shiny no-take zone is even dry.
The Marine Education Trust would like to see the Chagos Archipelago become a world-leading example of a successfully functioning MPA, one that actually achieves the objective of long term protection of the marine environment. It is for that reason that we organised the January workshop and also explains why we are campaigning for a process that incorporates the perspectives of the exiled Chagossians and the Government of Mauritius in the development of the MPA.
We are a tiny charity, and lack the resources of the Chagos Environment Network. That our campaign has been supported by, for example, the President of the Global Coral Reef Alliance and the Emeritus Professor of Tropical Marine Biology at Newcastle University clearly shows that respected mainstream reef ecologists endorse this point of view.
Yours sincerely
Tara Hooper
Director
Marine Education Trust
www.marineeducationtrust.org"
The Guardian is renowned for consistently coming down on the side of the disadvantaged and the dispossessed; it is a paper that naturally lends itself to supporting the Chagossians' cause. However, the current issues surrounding Chagos are of such gravity and need to be attended to with such urgency that merely mentioning the Chagossians' cause as an afterthought is simply not good enough. More could be done, and more should be done.
Ms Aldred's article was better than that from Frank Pope at The Times, in that it did at least make some mention of the Chagossians' campaign for justice; Aldred also quoted longstanding supporter of the Chagossians and Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group, Jeremy Corbyn MP. Nevertheless there were some significant flaws with its overall content: The Guardian stopped short of taking a strong and principled editorial stance on the issue, for example.
These concerns have been eloquently and forcefully aired by the Marine Education Trust's Director, Tara Hooper, whose letter to The Guardian is reproduced in full below:
"Your coverage of the campaign to create a marine protected area in Chagos is much more balanced than that I have seen recently in other national newspapers, and I am cheered to see this.
However, one thing to which you do not refer is that the Chagos Environment Network petition itself makes no mention at all of the Chagos islanders, their pending case with the European Court of Human rights, or the fact that the full no-take option advocated would allow no means for resettled islanders to use their marine resources for subsistence or income generation.
The CEN campaign also fails to mention that the UK Government has agreed to ultimately cede sovereignty of the archipelago to the Government of Mauritius, who are currently refusing to engage in the MPA development process. This too is a major stumbling block to the creation of a full no-take reserve, as the fishery licences to which Mauritius is entitled cannot be unilaterally revoked, so a full no-take zone cannot be declared without their cooperation.
A petition which asks the public to endorse a campaign but fails to fully inform them of the issue involved is misleading, to say the least, and cannot be considered an accurate reflection of the view they would have expressed had they been fully informed.
Jessica Aldred’s article lists the three options for the MPA given in the FCO consultation document. These options arose following a workshop commissioned by the FCO and held at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton (NOCS) in August 2009. The Marine Resources Assessment Group (MRAG) was invited to that workshop, which perhaps explains why two of the three options allow for, effectively, business as usual for pelagic fishing. That there was not a fourth option proposed, that of zonation within reef areas to allow for sustainable fisheries by resettled islanders, is perhaps because no representatives from the Chagossian community were invited.
One member of the organising committee and other scientists due to attend the NOCS workshop boycotted it for this very reason.
That this fourth option is necessary was the outcome of a second scientific workshop, held at Royal Holloway on 7 January, to discuss the socio-economic issues related to the creation of an MPA, and to which Chagossian representatives and the Government of Mauritius were invited.
The outcome of this second workshop reflects the belief of conservationists that the aggressive campaign for full no-take protection is actually harmful to the long-term prospects for conservation of Chagos, as well as being morally questionable (for the reasons already outlined above).
MPAs fail through lack of engagement, be that the lack of political will to properly manage and enforce the MPA, or through a lack of community ownership. By failing to engage with the Chagossians or the Government of Mauritius, the current approach to the MPA designation is doing a great job of alienating those who will govern and live alongside the MPA in the future, threatening any chance of success in the long term.
A Pew employee has recently said “The CEN position is that if the government decides to designate the Chagos as an MPA, this should be done “without prejudice” to any future changes in circumstances regarding the islands, meaning that any conservation arrangements could be modified if necessary.” Viewing an MPA as something that is transitory, that can be modified as circumstances change, sends entirely the wrong message and, again, has implications for the long term success of the initiative.
Given that the European Court of Human Rights may make their recommendations on resettlement as early as this spring, it may prove necessary to make modifications to the MPA before the ink on the shiny no-take zone is even dry.
The Marine Education Trust would like to see the Chagos Archipelago become a world-leading example of a successfully functioning MPA, one that actually achieves the objective of long term protection of the marine environment. It is for that reason that we organised the January workshop and also explains why we are campaigning for a process that incorporates the perspectives of the exiled Chagossians and the Government of Mauritius in the development of the MPA.
We are a tiny charity, and lack the resources of the Chagos Environment Network. That our campaign has been supported by, for example, the President of the Global Coral Reef Alliance and the Emeritus Professor of Tropical Marine Biology at Newcastle University clearly shows that respected mainstream reef ecologists endorse this point of view.
Yours sincerely
Tara Hooper
Director
Marine Education Trust
www.marineeducationtrust.org"
The Guardian is renowned for consistently coming down on the side of the disadvantaged and the dispossessed; it is a paper that naturally lends itself to supporting the Chagossians' cause. However, the current issues surrounding Chagos are of such gravity and need to be attended to with such urgency that merely mentioning the Chagossians' cause as an afterthought is simply not good enough. More could be done, and more should be done.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Parliamentarians write to The Times on Chagossians' campaign for justice
Members of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Chagos Islands have today had a letter printed in The Times, responding to the two-page spread that last week appeared in the newspaper. Members of the APPG, drawn from both Houses of Parliament, wrote to point out that the newspaper's coverage of proposals for a marine protected area (MPA) around the Chagos archipelago had neglected to give proper consideration to the role of the displaced Chagos islanders. That their letter has been printed goes at least someway to rectifying this regrettable imbalance.
The original letter was trimmed by The Times for its inclusion in the paper, but is reproduced in full below:
"On 22 January you published a two page spread on the proposed Chagos Islands Marine Protected Area (MPA). The role that the Chagos Islanders could play in this was ignored. Frank Pope's article stated that 2000 Chagos Islanders were 'relocated' to Britain and Mauritius to make room for a US base on Diego Garcia. In fact about 1500 Chagossians, of whom some 700 survive, were removed against their will from the Archipelago to Mauritius and Seychelles in the early seventies. Pope also claimed that resettlement would require an airport and town which would be financially and environmentally ruinous.
How many would wish to return, and the nature of a resettlement on two atolls, 150 miles north of the base, is impossible to determine at this stage.The Chagos Islanders want to be involved with the conservation and environmental protection of the islands. Elsewhere in the world MPAs rely on local people to monitor and enforce the protection MPAs provide. Careful management and planning can, at modest cost, avoid degradation of the environment, provide sensitive transport links, not necessarily an airport, and a trained work force willing and able to police the proposed MPA, The All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) has urged the FCO to commission a rapid independent study of the numbers who would wish to resettle and the practicalities of resettlement.
The APPG supports both the creation of an MPA and the aspiration of Chagossians to resettle. Many will not want to live permanently in the Islands but they all want the right to visit their homeland at will. The way forward is to make provision in the proposed MPA for Chagossian interests (such as local fishing) and those of Mauritius. Conservation and human rights must go hand in hand. We urge the Government, before the election, to lift the ban imposed in 2004 on the return of the Chagos Islanders and thus bring to an end this 40 year tragedy which has for too long dogged the UK's reputation for respect for human rights and its international obligations.
Jeremy Corbyn, MP, Chair Chagos Islands APPG
Baroness Whitaker
Lord Luce
Lord Ramsbotham
Lord Steel
Lord Wallace
Andrew Rosindell MP"
As well as correcting some important facts about the Chagossians' expulsion and the status of plans for resettlement, this letter represents yet another measured plea for compromise to be found over the future of the Chagos islands.
"The way forward," they argue, is for the Government "to make provision in the proposed marine protected area for Chagossian interests (such as local fishing) and those of Mauritius. The Government would be judicious to heed their advice, as the long-term prospects of an MPA in Chagos will be substantially dependent upon the cooperation of Mauritius, which stands to inherit sovereignty of the islands at some point in the future, and which has made its support for an MPA contingent upon the Chagossians' rights being attended to.
With just three weeks left to run of the FCO's consultation on the Chagos MPA proposal, the intervention of these parliamentarians is especially welcome. Ultimately, however, the Government itself will need to stand up and be counted if conservation and human rights and are indeed to go "hand in hand" in Chagos.
The original letter was trimmed by The Times for its inclusion in the paper, but is reproduced in full below:
"On 22 January you published a two page spread on the proposed Chagos Islands Marine Protected Area (MPA). The role that the Chagos Islanders could play in this was ignored. Frank Pope's article stated that 2000 Chagos Islanders were 'relocated' to Britain and Mauritius to make room for a US base on Diego Garcia. In fact about 1500 Chagossians, of whom some 700 survive, were removed against their will from the Archipelago to Mauritius and Seychelles in the early seventies. Pope also claimed that resettlement would require an airport and town which would be financially and environmentally ruinous.
How many would wish to return, and the nature of a resettlement on two atolls, 150 miles north of the base, is impossible to determine at this stage.The Chagos Islanders want to be involved with the conservation and environmental protection of the islands. Elsewhere in the world MPAs rely on local people to monitor and enforce the protection MPAs provide. Careful management and planning can, at modest cost, avoid degradation of the environment, provide sensitive transport links, not necessarily an airport, and a trained work force willing and able to police the proposed MPA, The All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) has urged the FCO to commission a rapid independent study of the numbers who would wish to resettle and the practicalities of resettlement.
The APPG supports both the creation of an MPA and the aspiration of Chagossians to resettle. Many will not want to live permanently in the Islands but they all want the right to visit their homeland at will. The way forward is to make provision in the proposed MPA for Chagossian interests (such as local fishing) and those of Mauritius. Conservation and human rights must go hand in hand. We urge the Government, before the election, to lift the ban imposed in 2004 on the return of the Chagos Islanders and thus bring to an end this 40 year tragedy which has for too long dogged the UK's reputation for respect for human rights and its international obligations.
Jeremy Corbyn, MP, Chair Chagos Islands APPG
Baroness Whitaker
Lord Luce
Lord Ramsbotham
Lord Steel
Lord Wallace
Andrew Rosindell MP"
As well as correcting some important facts about the Chagossians' expulsion and the status of plans for resettlement, this letter represents yet another measured plea for compromise to be found over the future of the Chagos islands.
"The way forward," they argue, is for the Government "to make provision in the proposed marine protected area for Chagossian interests (such as local fishing) and those of Mauritius. The Government would be judicious to heed their advice, as the long-term prospects of an MPA in Chagos will be substantially dependent upon the cooperation of Mauritius, which stands to inherit sovereignty of the islands at some point in the future, and which has made its support for an MPA contingent upon the Chagossians' rights being attended to.
With just three weeks left to run of the FCO's consultation on the Chagos MPA proposal, the intervention of these parliamentarians is especially welcome. Ultimately, however, the Government itself will need to stand up and be counted if conservation and human rights and are indeed to go "hand in hand" in Chagos.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Frank Pope muddies the waters of Chagos marine protection debate
The Times newspaper today included a two-page spread (pp. 22-23) on the Chagos islands and the proposals for a marine reserve to be imposed around the archipelago. Unfortunately, the tone of the coverage was such that supporters of the Chagossians are unlikely to have found it palatable. Times Ocean Correspondent Frank Pope's article made for particularly chilling reading.
Pope begins his article by committing an offence that seems to be occurring with frustrating regularity at present - namely, citing the Chagossians' expulsion from their homeland as something that has done wonders for the environmental preservation of Chagos, an assertion that is as disputable as it is disgraceful.
Firstly, there is no evidence to suggest that the Chagos islands' marine environment would have been any worse off had the Chagossians not been deported in the 1960s and 1970s; suggesting a direct causal relationship between their expulsion and the current state of "Chagossian waters" is misleading to say the least. Secondly, and most importantly, it is utterly reprehensible to argue that environmental protection should ever be pursued by denying people their basic human rights. The Chagossians are not irresponsible polluters, bent on destroying the pristine coral reefs of the Indian Ocean; rather, they are the displaced indigenous people of the islands who simply want their right to return to be restored.
Notwithstanding the sorry premise of his article, Pope goes on to completely misrepresent the facts about the Chagossians’ campaign for resettlement. Who, exactly, has said that resettlement would involve the construction of an airport and a new town? Which of the Outer Chagos islands are even big enough for such construction projects to take place? It is wrong for Pope to characterise the Chagossians' campaign to return in this way when an agreed plan for resettlement has yet to be agreed by all.
If Pope had done his research he would have discovered that, far from seeking to pave over paradise, those in favour of resettlement are actually calling for a limited, small-scale, experimental settlement to be established in the first instance. The exact details of a resettlement programme would, of course, have to be negotiated; all that is non-negotiable for the Chagossians is that their right of return must be restored. And rightly so.
Pope goes on to highlight the risk that tourism could pose to the Chagos environment. Again, this is an entirely specious argument: nobody is suggesting that a Chagossian resettlement programme would have to be sustained by massive tourism. Yes, a controlled amount of eco-tourism could be part of a sustainable resettlement plan, but these details would be ironed out as part of a negotiated deal.
In any case, tourism to the Chagos islands already happens on a surprising scale. Just run a Google search for “Chagos, cruiser, yacht” and you will find umpteen examples of wealthy Western tourists playing volleyball, swapping books and drinking coffee on the pristine beaches of Chagos. Some scientists may well visit the islands without sunscreen, as Pope enthusiastically avers, but can the same be said of the countless yachties who unabashedly frequent the Chagos islands at present? It is likely not.
Lastly, Pope makes the tired argument that resettling the Chagos islands would involve a financial cost to the British Exchequer. Whilst cost is almost certainly a concern for the FCO, it does not represent anything like an insurmountable barrier. Rather, it is all a question of priorities. Money is spent on Overseas Territories like the Falklands and Pitcairn on a regular basis; funds could similarly be found for Chagos if the political will were there.
On this, it is worth pointing out that nobody has ever asked British taxpayers if they would be willing to contribute to the Chagossians’ right of abode being restored. When a similar question was asked of the Ghurkas' right to settle in the UK - a campaign that The Times was vocal in its support for - common decency prevailed and the Ghurkas were afforded what was their due. There is no reason to assume that the answer would be any different for the Chagossians.
"An investment now could decide the future of the ocean and all those who depend on its bounty," Pope concludes his article by saying. True enough, but aren't the human rights of the Chagossians worth investing in too? And who said that the two had to be mutually exclusive?
There is already too much misinformation about the Chagos islands and the Chagossians' campaign for justice without reputable newspapers like The Times adding to the problem. Environmental protection and human rights can go hand-in-hand in Chagos, whatever The Times may print.
Pope begins his article by committing an offence that seems to be occurring with frustrating regularity at present - namely, citing the Chagossians' expulsion from their homeland as something that has done wonders for the environmental preservation of Chagos, an assertion that is as disputable as it is disgraceful.
Firstly, there is no evidence to suggest that the Chagos islands' marine environment would have been any worse off had the Chagossians not been deported in the 1960s and 1970s; suggesting a direct causal relationship between their expulsion and the current state of "Chagossian waters" is misleading to say the least. Secondly, and most importantly, it is utterly reprehensible to argue that environmental protection should ever be pursued by denying people their basic human rights. The Chagossians are not irresponsible polluters, bent on destroying the pristine coral reefs of the Indian Ocean; rather, they are the displaced indigenous people of the islands who simply want their right to return to be restored.
Notwithstanding the sorry premise of his article, Pope goes on to completely misrepresent the facts about the Chagossians’ campaign for resettlement. Who, exactly, has said that resettlement would involve the construction of an airport and a new town? Which of the Outer Chagos islands are even big enough for such construction projects to take place? It is wrong for Pope to characterise the Chagossians' campaign to return in this way when an agreed plan for resettlement has yet to be agreed by all.
If Pope had done his research he would have discovered that, far from seeking to pave over paradise, those in favour of resettlement are actually calling for a limited, small-scale, experimental settlement to be established in the first instance. The exact details of a resettlement programme would, of course, have to be negotiated; all that is non-negotiable for the Chagossians is that their right of return must be restored. And rightly so.
Pope goes on to highlight the risk that tourism could pose to the Chagos environment. Again, this is an entirely specious argument: nobody is suggesting that a Chagossian resettlement programme would have to be sustained by massive tourism. Yes, a controlled amount of eco-tourism could be part of a sustainable resettlement plan, but these details would be ironed out as part of a negotiated deal.
In any case, tourism to the Chagos islands already happens on a surprising scale. Just run a Google search for “Chagos, cruiser, yacht” and you will find umpteen examples of wealthy Western tourists playing volleyball, swapping books and drinking coffee on the pristine beaches of Chagos. Some scientists may well visit the islands without sunscreen, as Pope enthusiastically avers, but can the same be said of the countless yachties who unabashedly frequent the Chagos islands at present? It is likely not.
Lastly, Pope makes the tired argument that resettling the Chagos islands would involve a financial cost to the British Exchequer. Whilst cost is almost certainly a concern for the FCO, it does not represent anything like an insurmountable barrier. Rather, it is all a question of priorities. Money is spent on Overseas Territories like the Falklands and Pitcairn on a regular basis; funds could similarly be found for Chagos if the political will were there.
On this, it is worth pointing out that nobody has ever asked British taxpayers if they would be willing to contribute to the Chagossians’ right of abode being restored. When a similar question was asked of the Ghurkas' right to settle in the UK - a campaign that The Times was vocal in its support for - common decency prevailed and the Ghurkas were afforded what was their due. There is no reason to assume that the answer would be any different for the Chagossians.
"An investment now could decide the future of the ocean and all those who depend on its bounty," Pope concludes his article by saying. True enough, but aren't the human rights of the Chagossians worth investing in too? And who said that the two had to be mutually exclusive?
There is already too much misinformation about the Chagos islands and the Chagossians' campaign for justice without reputable newspapers like The Times adding to the problem. Environmental protection and human rights can go hand-in-hand in Chagos, whatever The Times may print.
