The plight of the Chagos Islanders may sound a little like the title of one those Ealing comedies with Terry Thomas and Dennis Price but it has proven to be a decidedly murky and shameful experience for the British Government.
You probably recall reading somewhere about the 2,000 or so Islanders of Diego Garcia (the Chagos people, or Ilois) who were forcibly pushed out of their remote Indian Island paradise in 1960s to make way for a US air base.
Of course in those days there was threat of nuclear war and less care taken with the human rights of the indigenous people's of Britain's minor territories. But now, we, as a nation, are able to face up to our responsibilities and right those colonial wrongs. Except in this case we aren't. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office are holding the same line on this matter they held in about 1965 which could be caricatured as the man in the white suit and pith helmet resting his boots on the local natives.
The Islanders, to their credit, have mounted a substantial campaign for compensation and rapatriation and won several rounds of legal battles in the High Court. The FCO lawyers maintain their "all along time ago, let sleeping dogs lie, etc ."
At the High Court, Sir Sydney Kentridge QC, for the Ilois, said there was no known precedent "for the lawful use of prerogative powers to remove or exclude an entire population of British subjects from their homes and place of birth" and described the treatment of the Chagossians as "outrageous, unlawful and a breach of accepted moral standards".
So to Foreign Office questions on Feb 19, Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) asked
FCO to "take account of the mood of the House" (i.o.w. we all know the game's up) in respect of the Chagos islanders and ensure "this wrong [is] remedied".
Junior Minister, Meg Munn gave a ghastly reply straight out of Sir Humphrey's handbook of Civil Service obfuscation. She referred to a "2002 feasibility study" which concluded "a lasting resettlement would be precarious ... and would entail substantial open-ended contingent liability". Ugh.
The Foreign Office had a way round these pesky court rulings. The British Indian Ocean Territory (Constitution) Order 2004 laid before Privy Council has effectively overidden the High Court decision and has again taken away all rights from the Chagos Islanders without even a whiff of consultation. The only hope appears to be when the US base shuts in 2016.
Then on Thursday, Foreign Sec 'Brains' Milliband gave a rare FCO Commons statement (Home Sec seems to do two a week). Apparently the relentless denial in the face of gathering evidence about US rendition flights over British airspace was not sustainable. Milliband had been tipped off by 'Condy' Rice the US had been using Diego Garcia to re-fuel on CIA rendition operations from somewhere to Guantanamo. All this had happened without British knowledge and was of terrible embarrassment to the Government underlining how very uneven the special relationship had become under Bush/Cheney.
If McCain wins in November we shouldn't expect the US military presence to be winding down anywhere. Although the Chagossians would be able to live alongside the base, it is doubtful the US relishes locals observing their clandestine comings and goings.
Of course in those days there was threat of nuclear war and less care taken with the human rights of the indigenous people's of Britain's minor territories. But now, we, as a nation, are able to face up to our responsibilities and right those colonial wrongs. Except in this case we aren't. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office are holding the same line on this matter they held in about 1965 which could be caricatured as the man in the white suit and pith helmet resting his boots on the local natives.
The Islanders, to their credit, have mounted a substantial campaign for compensation and rapatriation and won several rounds of legal battles in the High Court. The FCO lawyers maintain their "all along time ago, let sleeping dogs lie, etc ."
At the High Court, Sir Sydney Kentridge QC, for the Ilois, said there was no known precedent "for the lawful use of prerogative powers to remove or exclude an entire population of British subjects from their homes and place of birth" and described the treatment of the Chagossians as "outrageous, unlawful and a breach of accepted moral standards".
So to Foreign Office questions on Feb 19, Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) asked
FCO to "take account of the mood of the House" (i.o.w. we all know the game's up) in respect of the Chagos islanders and ensure "this wrong [is] remedied".
Junior Minister, Meg Munn gave a ghastly reply straight out of Sir Humphrey's handbook of Civil Service obfuscation. She referred to a "2002 feasibility study" which concluded "a lasting resettlement would be precarious ... and would entail substantial open-ended contingent liability". Ugh.
The Foreign Office had a way round these pesky court rulings. The British Indian Ocean Territory (Constitution) Order 2004 laid before Privy Council has effectively overidden the High Court decision and has again taken away all rights from the Chagos Islanders without even a whiff of consultation. The only hope appears to be when the US base shuts in 2016.
Then on Thursday, Foreign Sec 'Brains' Milliband gave a rare FCO Commons statement (Home Sec seems to do two a week). Apparently the relentless denial in the face of gathering evidence about US rendition flights over British airspace was not sustainable. Milliband had been tipped off by 'Condy' Rice the US had been using Diego Garcia to re-fuel on CIA rendition operations from somewhere to Guantanamo. All this had happened without British knowledge and was of terrible embarrassment to the Government underlining how very uneven the special relationship had become under Bush/Cheney.
If McCain wins in November we shouldn't expect the US military presence to be winding down anywhere. Although the Chagossians would be able to live alongside the base, it is doubtful the US relishes locals observing their clandestine comings and goings.
No comments:
Post a Comment