Guantanamo Bay is a name which has become familiar to everyone not buried in a hole in the ground for the last three years. The facility on Cuba where the US has been detaining terrorist "suspects" without charge as part of the “War on Terror” has become infamous and attracted considerable protest. However this is not the only such detention facility. Abu Ghraib, which recently found its way into the news when photographs and footage of "abuse" (what the less polite might describe as "torture") of detainees emerged, is another, as is Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan. Less well known is “Camp Justice” on the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.
The exact status of the facility is unclear. Not subject to the media spotlight that has been shone on Guantanamo Bay and with Red Cross and human rights organisations unable to visit, there are many questions. Nonetheless an article in the Washington Post (26/12/02) suggests that interrogators at the facility are using "stress and duress" techniques and other practices prohibited under international laws on torture and mistreatment. Other reports suggest that key figures from Jemaah Islamiah (the group accused of the Bali bombing) and members of the Iraqi leadership are held on the island, although it is impossible to confirm this.
The facility is also central to US strategic aims in the Middle East. During the First Gulf War over 600 B52 bombing missions were carried out from the island. It was used again in the recent invasion of Iraq and during attacks against Afghanistan in 2001. The island is also the staging base for the US fleet in the Indian Ocean. That such a facility exists at all may seem bad enough to many, but the history of how it came to be there also raises many troubling issues, involving as it does the dispossession of the island’s indigenous inhabitants.
Diego Garcia is part of the Chagos Archipelago, now officially known as the “British Indian Ocean Territory” (BIOT), an entity created in 1965. The purpose of inventing the BIOT was to allow Britain to hold onto the archipelago - and Diego Garcia, which the US wanted as a base, in particular - when Mauritius, which it had formerly been a part of, became independent in 1968. 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.)
Having effectively stolen the islands the UK then set about removing the population a process which took place between 1965 and 1973. Some were tricked into leaving, not being told until they had left that they would be unable to return. Others were forcibly removed. In 1967 the British Government bought out the plantation owners and shut down the plantations, it also ended the regular supply voyages to the island. There are reports of armed men forcing people onto boats allowing them only to take one small each, slaughtering their livestock and destroying their homes. In 1971 a British Government Immigration Ordinance made the eviction official, denying the Chagossians the right to return home. When the Nordvaer, the last ship carrying the evicted population to their new homes, docked in 1973 those onboard held a sit-in and refused to disembark.
Most ended up living in Mauritius with a small community in the Seychelles and a handful in the UK. The majority found themselves homeless and penniless. Although they were Commonwealth subjects, the UK Chagos Support Association (http://www.chagossupport.org.uk) notes that when exiles arrived at the Mauritian capital, Port Louis, as many did, “No-one from the British High Commission in Mauritius even came to the quayside to offer help.” They ended up living where they could which meant that most ended up in slums. In Mauritius they faced, and continue to face, racial abuse. Drugs and alcohol have become major problems and there have been a number of suicides. More mundanely, but no less horrifically, malnutrition has claimed the lives of whole families.
In order to carry out this policy, the British Government developed what Mark Curtis calls “[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.
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.
The Chagossians have continued their struggles, often using the legal system. They have attempted to sue both the British and American governments for compensation. In 2000 the High Court ruled, 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 obligationswith 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. Additionally the government seems to have distorted some of the report’s findings. (I have been unable to obtain a copy of the report, what follows is drawn from the Parliamentary Debate on the issue.) The government claims that the report cites climate change as a barrier to resettlement, but in fact it notes, “At the present time it is not possible to quantify the risk associated with climate change for the Chagos Islands.” This lead Tam Dayell MP to comment that any conclusions that climate change made resettlement impossible 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 also seem to discredit suggestions that the archipelago is about to disappear beneath the waves. Government assertions that the report makes clear that the cost of resettlement is likely to be prohibitive are similarly unsupported, as the consultants make clear in the report they had “not been tasked with investigating the financial costs and benefits of resettlements”.
After the publication of the study nothing further happened for two years until June 10 2004. This, as you may recall, 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. 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 Order 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 along with the Scottish National Party (SNP). (The full debate is available on the UK Chagos Support Association’s website, link above, and worth taking the time to read.) The order may also have helped trigger a “diplomatic incident”.
Apparently angered by the move, Mauritian PM Paul Berenger has hinted that Mauritius may leave the Commonwealth and take the UK to the International Court of Justice (not to be confused with the International Criminal Court, the former is for disputes between states, the latter for cases against individuals) in the Hague. When he visited the UK in early July Berenger sought meetings with Blair and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, however both refused to meet him. This decision and steps taken shortly prior to the PM’s visit to prevent Mauritius taking Britain to the ICJ drew criticism from Don McKinnon, the Commonwealth secretary general. The Times noted that he “all but accused Britain of behaving like an old-fashioned colonial power”. He rebuked the government, remarking, “You do not hit someone over the head before they come to your front gate.” The British refusal to meet with 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”. It should be clear that something is very wrong when your government is being outdone by George Dubya in the diplomacy stakes.
Where things go from here remains unclear. The government claims it will try to arrange permission with the US for Chagossians to visit the graves of their ancestors, but remains opposed to resettlement. Many Chagossians and fellow campaigners are tired of following the ineffective legal route and are considering more direct actions. Mauritian socialist group Lalit (http://www.lalitmauritius.com), in coordination with a number of other groups, are planning a peace flotilla to try and “reclaim” the island. How effective this action may be is open to question, but it is likely to help publicise an injustice of which few people are aware.
In the Parliamentary debate on the issue, Tom Brake MP noted that the treatment of the Chagossians “is a sorry chapter in our past and it is poisoning our present.” He called for an official apology, compensation, assistance for the Chagossians where they are currently based and for a right of return. His comment on the issue’s “poisoning” effect on our present is particularly true in light of the allegations of the treatment of detainees on the island. Many in the UK have been quick to decry the apparent abuses taking place at Guantanamo Bay and more recently in Abu Ghraib, but much quieter about apparently similar treatment of detainees on British territory. Just as they have been quiet, whether because of disinterest or lack of knowledge, about the treatment of the Chagossians. It is time that changed.
Getting involved is easy. Quite apart from checking out the links in the above, you can write to your MP and encourage them to sign Early Day Motion 1355 (if they haven't already) which calls for the Government to rescind both of the Orders in Council preventing the Chagossians from returning to the island. |
|
