| | Le Diego de Bancoult | | | | Modifier la taille du texte: | A | | | A | | |
|
| | Par:- Jean-Claude De L’Estrac
On 20/12/2010 |
Les «îlois», exilés de leurs terres, sont arrivés ici, par vagues successives, sur des bateaux, le «Nordvaer», et le «Mauritius». C’est le début de l’affaire Diego. Depuis, ce sont les Mauriciens que l’on mène en bateau. Ces jours-ci encore.
L’Anglo-Mauricien, Olivier Bancoult, vient de recevoir un nouveau soutien public du Premier ministre dans son combat contre les autorités britanniques. Le discours tenu à l’occasion veut inciter les Mauriciens à penser que c’est là une manière de réaffi rmer notre revendication de souveraineté sur l’archipel des Chagos. C’est faux, c’est dangereux ; il convient de lever l’ambiguïté.
De par la Constitution de Maurice, au moment de l’Indépendance en 1968, la citoyenneté mauricienne fut accordée à tous ceux nés dans le pays, incluant ceux nés dans le «British Indian Ocean Territory» (BIOT), qui avait fait partie du territoire mauricien jusqu’en 1965. C’est ainsi que des habitants des Chagos, nés dans l’archipel, et dont presque le tiers était alors de la deuxième ou troisième génération d’«îlois», ont obtenu la double
nationalité mauricienne et britannique.
Le combat que mène Bancoult – et que dit soutenir Ramgoolam – ne concerne en rien la question de la souveraineté mauricienne. Il est le combat d’un sujet de Sa Majesté qui conteste la moralité et la légalité de l’exil forcé des Chagossiens rendu possible par une «Immigration Ordinance» du BIOT.
Depuis de nombreuses années, c’est en tant que sujets britanniques que les Vencatessen, les Bancoult et d’autres «îlois» qui se considèrent comme des «réfugiés» à Maurice, se battent devant les Cours de justice de la Grande-Bretagne pour obtenir le droit de retour dans leur pays natal. A un moment, ils avaient même obtenu techniquement ce droit, du moins dans une partie des îles de l’archipel.
Sur le plan strictement humanitaire, le gouvernement mauricien peut sans doute justifi er un soutien à cette cause. Mais il ne faut pas masquer le fait que les succès de Bancoult devant la justice britannique n’aident en rien les revendications souverainistes de Maurice.
Encore que des informations aujourd’hui disponibles – certaines sont encore plus scandaleuses que les révélations de «WikiLeaks» – démontrent bien des faiblesses de l’argumentaire mauricien. Un premier fait : selon ses propres experts juridiques, la Grande-Bretagne n’aurait jamais pu «exciser», constitutionnellement, les Chagos et déplacer les populations, sans l’accord formel des autorités mauriciennes. Cet accord était jugé «essentiel» par les juristes britanniques. Quand ils acceptent de considérer le projet des Américains, les Britanniques, par la voix du secrétaire d’Etat aux Colonies, reconnaissent que : «Americans have been informed that… we are nevertheless willing in principle to pursue proposed joint development further on the basis that, subject to the agreement of the two Governments, which we regard as essential, we would be prepared to detach from Mauritius and Seychelles…»
Dans cette triste affaire, il y a donc deux responsables: la Grande-Bretagne indéniablement, qui viole, en l’occurrence, tous les grands principes dont elle se dit le dépositaire ; un ministre britannique a déjà reconnu que le déplacement de la population chagossienne ne constitue pas, pour dire le moins, «the finest hour of UK foreign policy». Mais il demeure que les dirigeants politiques mauriciens d’alors ont donné, et bien légèrement, leur soutien aux Britanniques. Ils avaient le choix, leur accord était «essentiel», ils auraient pu avoir refusé «l’excision» et l’exil des Chagossiens sans compromettre aucunement l’avènement de l’Indépendance. Ils peuvent plaider une circonstance atténuante : ils ne le savaient pas, contrairement aux Britanniques qui, eux, avaient fait étudier les textes de loi.
Mais au tribunal de l’histoire, l’ignorance n’est pas un alibi.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Starbright | | | Sorry to deny some parts of your comments Ploum Ploum. The 1967 election was not an ordinary general election but the contest was interpreted locally as a referendum on independence, so the number of seats and the best loser system were completely irrelevant, they did not matter at all.The election was won by a very small margin as the PMSD alone scored over 44% of the votes left the Labor with only 35%.Should one of the small parties join the PMSD then your independence dream would have been shattered. Unfortunately the independence of 1968 was preceded by a period of communal strife, brought under control by British troops. The communal strife that preceded independence led to around 300 deaths. | | | PLOUM PLOUM- CHAGOS - MYTHS AND FACTS | | | Good Old Chap Starbright ! Belated Xmas greetings to you and all the best for the New Year 2011.
Couple of minor observations here , if you kindly oblige: John Shaw Rennie served as Governor until 12 March 1968, then AS GOVERNOR GENERAL till September 1968 to be replaced by Lennard Williams who himself will be replaced by the First Mauritian Governor General Sir Raman Osman. SSR was Chief Minister until 1963 when , as agreed during the 1962 Constitution Talk in London, he would become Premier by virtue of the Party with the largest number of seats. The Legislative Council would then become the Legislative assembly. SSR did not lose the 1967 General elections to Duval’s PMSD. The results were as follows: Alliance Pro-Independence 39 (43) , PMSD ( Against Independence) 23 (27). Labour returned 24 seats, IFB ( Bissondoyal) 11 seats, CAM ( Mohammed) 4 seats . The PMSD returned 23 Seats only . The numbers in bracket denote the number of seats after allocation of Best Loser seats. So even without the IFB and the CAM , Labour, with 24 seats returned more seats than the PMSD with 23. The Chagossians were converted to Catholicism but not all of them were descendents of Slaves from Madagascar or Mozambique. A few hailed from India ( yes as slaves as well) , from Somalia and Comoros Islands. Hence there were a multiplicity of faith originally that rapidly turn into catholic hegemony. Read Father Roger Duscercle’s Book for an appreciation of Missionary works in the Chagos. Nowadays, some of the original names of the Chagossians are the only signs of their ancestral faith.
| | | Starbright | | | Sir John Shaw Rennie was the last English Governor of Mauritius until 1968 march 12 and prior to that date SSR was almost powerless. He was only the chief minister.Before i left Mauritius for good in the mid-60s i was a great supporter of the PMSD under the leadership of Jules Koenig and i was completely against independence.I was not a big fan of SSR but i do not want to bear false witnesses. The Chagossians are Catholic as myself and i do love them but i gotta keep the thruth alive and i never lie.I just want to remind people that SSR lost the 1967 independence election to PMSD and Gaetan Duval but his independence dream was saved by the CAM and the IFB. | | | Nagarjuna | | |
@Ploum Ploum: I can also say: 'If you only knew!'. I did not feel being patronising. En passant, is it patronising to call someone (especially a man) 'dear'? I will always point to the pain of the Chagossiens which is never discussed. It is left at the bottom of the barrel of facts or opinions about them. I respect the views of others even if privately I consider them to be trash. Can anyone discuss the lost of The Chagos without bringing in SSR? Was not he the leader of the majority community represented by the Labour Party? If he had said 'no' the whole thing would have collapsed whether the others agreed to the excision or not. We will never know what would have happened if he had walked out of the negotiations. I think he will be quickly forgotten by future generations when his son is no longer around to keep his memory alive. The stain of the pain of the Chagossiens can never be removed from our flag and it does not matter if they get back their island home or not. This is why I say he is solely responsible for the pain of the Chagossiens. It was the LEADERS of the various communities who agreed to this catastrophe. Who gave them the nod to make such a deal? They were literally acting as little dictators! The mauritians were left completely in the dark about what they were doing. This is the shame. This is the selfishness. This is the greed. IS NOT IT STRANGE THAT IT IS NOW THAT YOU MENTION THEY PUT UP A 'FIGHT'? It does not matter who was in charge, who had the power to sack, who had the guns to kill, who held the whip, SSR could have said "NO" and do as you please!!' This would have been the mark of a great man who would always have a special place in our hearts. But he let us down. We all know that India was not excised. Excised from what? The beauty of Gandhi is that such a frail man could confront a mighty empire and win without firing a single shot in anger.
He rightly deserves the title 'the father of the nation'. Does SSR deserve this title? It does not matter if the British and the americans were planning this since the beginning of time, SSR still had the POWER to say NO. He was not a slave. Even slaves can say NO and die FREE. You know the facts about the 3 million pounds but no one seems to know what happened to the money. To use your words, SSR could have said: "Over my dead body!" | | | chitchat | | | Hi, PlOUM-PlOUM, I'm an avid reader of your comments but in respect of the Chagos, please stop
banging your head against the brick wall mate. Look at the Middle East Peace Plan. The UN is often
defeated, A unanimous vote against Israel is easily vetoed by the US. The prestigious Monsieur de L'Estrac can be very factual from the revelations of SSR, over a coconut drink during the 1960's,
but as a wise and learned man, he would not only be economical in telling the truth but CAUTIOUS,
and we know why!. A workable resettlement scheme for the unsophisticated, illeterate illois should
have been the medicine. It's now too late, the toothpaste cannot be put back into the tube. let's
enjoy - mange pistache guette cinema.
| | | PLOUM PLOUM- CHAGOS EXCISION- MYTHS AND FACTS | | | Nagarjuna: If I may politely request you to refrain from patronising me on the Pain of Chagossians. I am living it. If only you knew! Thank you. Now onto the issue of “ All Communities”- No, No, my dear , it is you that has introduced this business of SSR belonging to the Majority community etc , in your post in Tribune on Dec 10 ( the Paratian Blog). I have tried to debunk this notion of Majority vs Minority in as much as the excision of Chagos was concerned. ALL COMMUNITIES PRESENT at Lancaster house in 1965 agreed to the Excision, differing only in what compensation should be gotten for it. We did not figure in their shopping list!! Never!! Now, why do you squarely put the blame on SSR ONLY. SSR was not there representing the MAURITIAN GOVERNMENT nor was he IN CHARGE OF THE MAURITIAN GOVERMENT EITHER AT LANCASTER OR IN MAURITIUS AT THE TIME. It was the Governor General who was in charge with the power of appointing and sacking Ministers. SSR was the Premier, a fancy Title , after another fancy title of Chief Minister prior to the 1962 Constitutions. The 4 Leaders did put up a fight, but in vain. Anthony Greenwood described it as “The Mauritian Ministers have opened their BIG MOUTHS”. Greenwood did not get any joy with them, so BIG BROTHER WILSON was called to muscle in on SSR. WILSON told SSR in no uncertain terms: Whatever your position, whatever your demands, reasonable or not, We (the British) will detach Chagos from Mauritius (incidentally, you (Mauritius) only had Chagos part of you quite by accident (described as administrative convenience by Wilson). In front of Wilson was already a list of 8 conditions that was more or less agreed by the 4 LEADERS. You stated that SSR could have simply walked away and refused Excision and become our Local Gandhi (Over my dead Body!!). Wise after the events logic! India was excised despite Gandhiji’s opposition. You are also comparing our Politicians ( all 4 Parties, inclus) with their British counterparts. There was never a level playing field. Do you know what STRATEGIC PLANNING WENT INTO ACQUIRING AN ISLAND BASE FOR THE AMERICANS, SINCE 1959 AND EXECUTED BY THEIR POODLE THE BRITS? SOCIALIST WILSON WAS MORE THAN HAPPY TO PLAY SECOND FIDDLE TO THE AMERICANS. Let us hope on Sunday, we may read some more from JCDL on the LONG RANGE OBJECTIVES GROUP [Op-93 of 1955] and STU BARBER ‘s STRATEGIC ISLAND CONCEPT OF 1958 . | | | PLOUM PLOUM- CHAGOS EXCISION- MYTHS AND FACTS | | | The £3 MILLION COMPENSATION ( Not to be confused with Resettlement Payments)
From the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Anthony Greenwood’s statement in House of Commons on Wednesday 10th November 1965 ( 2 days after Chagos was excised and BIOT created by orders in Council) “. ..... the British Government has undertaken in recognition of the detachment of the Chagos archipelago from Mauritius to provide ADDITIONAL GRANTS amounting to £3 MILLIONS for expenditure on development projects in Mauritius to be agreed between the British and the Mauritius Governments. These grants will be over and above the allocation earmarked for Mauritius in the next period of C.D. & W assistance.” The £3 Million was paid in the Financial year 1965/66 and was credited to CAPITAL REVENUE, as Item L IV/4.
| | | Patriot - democrat | | | My dear patriots, I am glad to note that all of you have valuable points and have done good research in the field where we start discovering how much was hidden thanks to wikileaks. How much more remains to be discovered and what will never be discovered, only god knows. In this platform provided by l'express to which we are greatly thankful, your points should come together to strengthen our position and not weaken us as internal disagreement is characteristic of conquered people or of easily conquerable ones. It would be good that we stop debating based on our admiration or hatred of SSR he is already history. If one can state that he brought independence to Mauritius with Rodrigues, Tromelin & Agalega then another will find to say why was Chagos not included and the endless discussion will start. Fact that the British did pressurise but very few bring more light to this most of our people are simply against one another. Not excluded that SSR may have had private/unofficial meetings with the British and what was then decided will never be known. The 'community aspect' simply does not fit into the context! Let's keep our 'prejugés' aside and base ourself on factual material and logics. It is also very true that the chagossians went through very hard times in Mauritius. Few questions 1. Why are some distant nations so greedy/eager to control our maritime territory? 2. Is military aspect the only one of interest to foreigners? 3. Besides fishing, what about other marine resources like minerals & petroleum in the almost two million km square (four times france's territory) that we possess? What about tourism potential in chagos? 4. Why don't we pressurise our government to invest to exploit our marine resources where chagossians could get jobs and do well? Does our government lack the finance & is in constant need of 'donation & advice' from imperialists? If that is so then, why did we seek independence? I consider these points to deserve equal attention without weakening our struggle to return Chagos under our full control. | | | scanner | | | From the advertisement I have just seen in l'express of today, may be most of the questions that are been raised in this very interesting debate, will be answered by JCL. I remember press reports showing him discussing the issue with SSR in the late 70s. Lets wait for the next article. | | | Nagarjuna | | | -@ Ploum Ploum. You know the facts. Facts can become toxic when exposed in a certain way. If I write trash please do not read it. It causes your keyboard to overheat with facts. How about letting us know the facts about the 3 million pounds paid as compensation by the British? What you do not know is the pain of the Chagossiens. And you will not find this pain on your list of facts. They were sacrificed as if they were the fauna and flora of the Chagos. The independence of Mauritius is tainted with their pain forever and no one can change this not even your facts. And who is responsible for this - SSR! Some say he had no choice. I say he had the choice of saying 'no' to the excision of the Chagos, walk out and accept the consequences. That would have been the stamp of a great soul. He did not and this IS selfishness - the typical behaviour of greedy, small minds. But to you it is trash. Perhaps your facts could answer this question: if ALL communities (as stated by you in a previous comment) agreed to the detachment of the Chagos, why is the son of SSR asking for its return? En passant, I think it is a serious error of judgement on his part to take the British to court. He has put his foot in it this time and it is stuck!!
| | | chitchat | | | -Ploum-Ploum, thanks mate I value your comments. Anyone who has doubts about the compensation paid for the Chagos Whatever it is Deal, sale, repossession etc can find the same figuers quoted by Mr
Curtis in his report on the "DEPOPuLATION OF THE CHAGOS". The Diego Garcia saga would have been water off a duck's back IF a workable resettlement scheme had been agreed and approved conditional
to the compensation paid by the British who had viewed the ILLOIS as "people who have little aptitude other than growing coconuts" and, the governor of the Seychelles on being asked to accept some commented "They are extremely unsophisticated, illiterate, untrainable and unsuitable for any work other than the simplest labour tasks of a copra plantation". He did not want them nor the money. Had the late SSR, used the £3million + (1967 money) to build a Morcellememt DIEGO/CHAGOS,
and train the Chagossian to adapt the Mauritian way of life and find employment, they would have little to mourn about BUT glorified the late SSR as the father Christmas who had made all their Christmases come as one. Forget the PM and his late dad HOW WAS THE MONEY SPENT (1976 £3Million+) | | | PLOUM PLOUM- CHAGOS- MYTHS AND FACTS | | | -I must also add that I am gobsmacked/ flabbergasted at the recent statement by SAJ on what he knew, when and where or whether it was a Communication or a Defence base ! This was what I call being ECONOMICAL WITH THE TRUTH but it could also be voluntary amnesia due to his age with a dose of political expediency. | | | PLOUM PLOUM- CHAGOS EXCISION- MYTHS AND FACTS | | | -A ChitChat & Democrat : As you put it " whenther Chagos was excised , sold or exchanged or otherwise" is NO LONGER A MYSTERY. The facts and evidence are clearly available and should be seen / studied with objestivity. The Bruno Lebon Scribd.com/doc provides the SOME of the TEXTS but NOT the CONTEXTS of the Chagos issue. Further more Lebon, by his own admission, is a fervent supporter of a Political party and could not control his bias in his choice of files and wording! I do not belong to any political party. I could not! I have accessed the British, Mauritius archives PLUS I have interviewed SOME of the current Players involved. To Nagarhuna: If you want to know about the £3m compensation fee or the £650,000 resettlement + further £4m +£1m paid to the Chagossians, I sure can oblige , if JCDL would approve! | | | PLOUM PLOUM- CHAGOS EXCISION- MYTHS AND FACTS | | | -To Nagarjuna: As a matter of fact , my first comment in this thread “ Le Diego de Bancoult” was meant to be a response to YOUR comment entitled “ It was selfishness” dated Dec 10 published in the Tribune section ( the Paratian Blog). For some reason it was not published there. It would appear that you cannot recollect your own trash. Allow me to oblige: You wrote : “SSR belonged to the majority community and no one would have had the guts to challenge him on anything especially regarding his personal, selfish desires. If no one was aware of the Chagos issue whose fault was it? Was not it the sacred duty of SSR to inform the nation of it (especially the Chagossiens) and the consequences? But he was thinking of himself and the interests of his community first”. So it is you, my dear who is really “communalising” an issue where none exist in 1965 at Lancaster House at least on the Chagos excision. True the whole business of our independence struggle is mired up from beginning to end with communal undertones and venom. For the last time perhaps let me repeat myself: While the main issues pertaining to the final status of Mauritius ( read Independence or Association with UK) were being debated in the main Conference Hall at Lancaster House in September 1965, IN PARALLEL , at least 3 separate meetings took place between the Chairman of the Conference, Mr. Anthony Grenwood , Secretary of State for the Colonies, and the 4 LEADERS OF THE MAIN POLITICAL LEADERS, REPRESENTING MAJORITY, MINORITY COMMUNITIES ( BORROWING ON YOUR TERMINOLOGY) PLUS ONE INDEPENDENT DELEGATE MINISTER MAURICE PATURAU( A MINORITY AMONG MINORITY). These 4 Leaders were : Dr Ramgoolam ( Labour) Mr Sookdeo Bissondoyal ( Independent Forward Bloc) Mr Jules Koenig ( PMSD) and Mr A R Mohammed ( CAM). The 23 other delegates (out of 28) were briefed about the Excision proposal by their respective Leaders and there were ample discussions among themselves in the evening at their Hotel in the Strand. The four Leaders ALL AGREED with the broad PRINCIPLE OF DETACHMENT OF THE CHAGOS , packaged as “ a UK/US communication base required for DEFENCE PURPOSES”. For sure, there were dissent among the 4 LEADERS and Mr Paturau- namely on the amount of compensation, on the leasehold ( preferred by SSR but strenuously resisted by the British), on the different forms of favours or special treatment expected from the US Embassy in London ( Sugar Quota, immigration to the US etc). Eventually they settled on the EXCISION PROPOSAL based on 8 conditions, and left London WITHOUT EXCISION and a ROADMAP FOR INDEPENDENCE. Yes Nagarjuna, CHAGOS WAS NOT EXCISED AT LANCASTER HOUSE IN SEPTEMBER 1965. The British DEMANDED AND REQUIRED A WRITTEN CONFIRMATION FROM THE MAURITIAN COUNCIL OF MINISTERS WHICH WAS GIVEN TO THEM ON THE 5TH NOVEMBER 1965 FROM MAURITIUS. The Council of Ministers consisted of all 4 Political Parties and was Chaired by the Governor General, Sir John Shaw Rennie NOT by SSR ! PMSD Ministers resigned from the Coalition on the 11th Novembers . See Koenig comments of Excision in my earlier post. INDEPENDENCE WAS DECIDED BY US ( MAURITIANS) I REPEAT BY CITIZENS IN AUGUST 1967 during general elections. ( The results could have gone either way , PMSD achieved an incredible 44% against Independence.). Finally let me remind everyone, Chagossians, their fate, their opinions, their very existence was NEVER in the equation from day one. This is the real and only Human tragedy, lest we forget ! | | | Nagarjuna | | | -@Democrat. It is my view that Mauritius is powerless as far as the Chagos is concerned. The mistake SSR made in the 60's can never be corrected. The sooner we realise this the better for us. It is too late. We are behaving like a child who cries and rolls in the dust on the ground because he/she cannot get what he/she wants. I get this feeling when I read the comment of 'Mauritian Patriot' below. It would be more profitable for us to co-operate, deal with the US and UK in private than try to publicly humiliate them. I feel this court case will harden their attitude further and they will punish us in ways we will barely notice. Put yourself in their shoes. There is no doubt in my mind that the government is playing politics with the Chagos and the Chagossiens. There is no nation, no court, no UN on this earth that can push the US out of the Chagos into the sea. Yet this is what Mauritius plans to do and it has been trying for decades.
Since independence, with a little economic success, we have been walking with shoes that are too big for us. Sometimes I feel that Mauritius thinks it is the capital of Africa! The Chagos evokes a lot of emotion in the mauritian. He is more or less bored with the mountains and the sea. He feels important when he is mixing it up with the powerful of this world but at what cost! Another bit of 'Mauritian Patriot's' comment: " We're not living in the bloody 1960's anymore dammit!". Yet this is what our politicians do at every election and it always works. With the Chagos it will not work. Hence the frustration. | | | chitchat | | | -Since the depopulation of the Chagos, who agreed to what, why and by whom still remain an enigma.
The late SSR, to the Mauritians, will continue to be little more than a dangerous conduit for axe-griding by anyone to harbours a grudge, more so since his son is the current country's PM. Perhaps future commentators should focus on the comments of Starbright, Ploum-Ploum and Mauritian Patriot, and the economical but informative editorial of JCL. | | | Mauritian Patriot! | | | -The prime minister of Mauritius has accused Britain of pursuing a "policy of deceit" over the Chagos islands, its Indian Ocean colony from where islanders were evicted to make way for a US military base. He spoke to the Guardian as his government launched the first step in a process that could end UK control over the territory.
Navinchandra Ramgoolam spoke out after the Labour government's decision to establish a marine reserve around Diego Garcia and surrounding islands was exposed earlier this month as the latest ruse to prevent the islanders from ever returning to their homeland.
A US diplomatic cable dated May 2009, disclosed by WikiLeaks, revealed that a Foreign Office official had told the Americans that a decision to set up a "marine protected area" would "effectively end the islanders' resettlement claims". The official, identified as Colin Roberts, is quoted as saying that "according to the HMG's []Her Majesty's government's] current thinking on the reserve, there would be 'no human footprints' or 'Man Fridays'" on the British Indian Ocean Territory uninhabited islands."
A US state department official commented: "Establishing a marine reserve might, indeed, as the FCO's Roberts stated, be the most effective long-term way to prevent any of the Chagos Islands' former inhabitants or their descendants from resettling in the BIOT."
Nearly a year later, in April this year, David Miliband, then foreign secretary, described the marine reserve as a "major step forward for protecting the oceans". He added that the reserve "will not change the UK's commitment to cede the territory to Mauritius when it is no longer needed for defence purposes".
"I feel strongly about a policy of deceit," Ramgoolam said , adding that he had already suspected Britain had a "hidden agenda".
Asked if he believed Miliband had acted in good faith, he said: "Certainly not. Nick Clegg said before the general election that Britain had a "moral responsibility to allow these people to at last return home". William Hague, now foreign secretary, said that if elected he would "work to ensure a fair settlement of this long-standing dispute".
Ramgoolam said he believed the government was adopting the same attitude as its predecessor. Mauritius has lodged a document with an international tribunal accusing Britain of breaching the UN convention on the law of the sea. It says Britain has no right to establish the marine zone since it was not a "coastal state" in the region, adding that Mauritius has the sole right to declare an "exclusive zone" around the British colony.
A legal document seen by the Guardian and submitted to an international tribunal says that in 1965 Britain "dismembered Mauritius by purporting to establish a so-called 'British Indian Ocean Territory'". Eight years later, it "forcibly removed the entire indigenous population of the Chagos archipelago, comprising a community of approximately 2,000 persons calling themselves Ilois or Chagossians", the document says.
Referring to the leaked US cable, it adds that the UK has "violated the 1982 []UN] convention and rules of general international law …" It says Mauritius is basing its claims on additional international rules including "the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources".
Ramgoolam said: "We have a strong case". Asked if the move paves the way to the end of the British Indian Ocean colony, he replied: "We have a broad strategy." Mauritius would adopt a "step by step" approach. He added that the Americans at present needed the Diego Garcia base for reasons of "international security".
An FO spokesman said: "We are aware that Mauritius have lodged an application under the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea". The FO added that the marine reserve was established "without prejudice" to the case before the European human rights court – an apparent admission that the reserve could not prevent the islanders returning if they won their case.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/21/mauritius-uk-chagos-islands?CMP=twt_fd
Arret fer demagogie astere! Be a patriot and support the Mauritian Government in its attempt to regain Chagos back from the British! What happened in the past, remains the past! We're not living in the bloody 1960s anymore dammit! Mette serieux! | | | Democrat | | | -@Nagarjuna. Inferiority complex leads to pessimism which in turn leads to defeat & endless intestinal war in the defeated circle each accusing the other of this and that and none proposing/doing anything concrete. We need to profit from changing situation - powers changing hands & wikileak revelations. We have a large sea territory (more than thrice the territory of France) unexploited by us except for the little fishing from which foreigners profit. To remind that this is not a frozen arctic sea but a tropical warm one with wealth not limited to fish but extending to minerals & petroleum. Our leaders often foolishly state that we have no natural resource. If we invest to exploit our resources as required, we can become a strong nation not in permanent need of being pampered by others. Whether Chagos was given, sold or excised is difficult to be known, still it's interesting to learn from the british archives through the link http://www.scribd.com/doc/38830747/How-SSR-gave-away-Diego Let's leave some work for historians, we have to be united to work for the future. | | | Nagarjuna | | | @Democrat. If after 40 years+ Mauritius has gained nothing, one can only feel one thing - pessimism! How many more years must we wait in order to change it to optimism? By taking the 'Chagos case' to court, Mauritius is about to learn what happens when a mouse confronts an elephant. It will get crushed in slow motion. We will find that doors start to mysteriously close to us. It will take us longer to achieve the dream of the PM - Singapore. The Marine Park is the result of our lack of intelligence by not seeing the foolishness of asking back something we willingly gave away without a whimper of protest. We have forced the hand of the UK. The decline of 'yesterday's powers' will not happen without another World War! I cannot see the arrogance of the US tolerate playing second fiddle without a fight. When the security of the US is threatened it will not listen to the UN or any court in this world. Israel, its very close ally, does it all the time. Touching upon racism, there is more racism in Mauritius now than before independence. What is the difference between racism and communalism? Not much, because the pain is the same. Now we will start spending our precious money and time for another 40 years to hop from court to court with our stupid belief that the laws of this world apply to a nation that rules it. In the unlikely scenario of either India or China replaces the US one day, it will behave in the same way. If we rely on the UN we will wait until Doomsday. | | | TOM HARRY | | | MBCTV la enn dimounn sa ou enn bann dimounn. ek oussi li out of subjek la. Nou pe koz ennlot size | | | Democrat | | | @Nagarjuna Your view is characterised by pessimism, preoccupiedness by rise of power of certain nations, perhaps sadness upon the decline of yesterday's powerful nations the same slave owners who have today changed mask to become the 'light bearers' to some. Their racist views are still the same behind curtains treating our chagossian brothers & sisters as few tarzans, etc. Berenger's words & wikileaks revelations confirm these. You rightly pointed out that for 40 years, hardly anything was achieved but right now in light of powers changing hands, wikileaks revealing facts & mauritius entering a legal case for the first time in an international court, we should be united and give our full support irrespective of the outcome. | | | Nagarjuna | | | In 'Mauritian Patriot' comment: "......there is a strong moral case for the UK permitting and supporting a return to the BIOT for the Chagossiens" Do the cables published by WikiLeaks so far reveal that any country, especially superpowers, have morals? Why is the government so concerned about the Chagossiens now when we abandoned them when they needed us? I think they are being used to strengthen our so-called 'moral claim'. The Chagossiens will quickly realise this if and when the Chagos is returned to Mauritius. We can dissect the past forever but my guess is the Chagos will never be returned to Mauritius. The latter, situated so far away, will quickly hand it over to either India or China under the pretext of 'development'. And I do not think either the US or the UK will like this. They would prefer to hang on to it. Another scenario is the British could make the BIOT an independent country and resettle there the Chagossiens and their descendants. After what they have been through they deserve a country of their own. Anyway, the creation of the Marine Park is the wall that permanently shuts Mauritius out for good. Perhaps if we co-operate with both the US and the UK we might get somewhere. This 'somewhere' could be trade concessions etc but not the Chagos.
The sooner we forget the latter the better it will be for the national psyche. What have we gained so far after 40 years+ of protests, threats etc? Absolutely nothing! | | | Starbright | | | In 1959, the American's first choice was the island of Aldabra, north of Madagascar. Unfortunately. Aldabra was a breeding ground for rare giant tortoises, whose mating habits would probably be upset by military activity and whose cause would be championed noisily by publicity - aware ecologists. The alternative was the chagos islands outside the cyclone range approved by the " USAF Coastal Sentry".In 1960 the Cyclone " Carol" broke the mooring ropes of the > USAF Coastal Sentry> in Port Louis harboor and she grounded in front of the Ireland Frazer.People should remenber that because she played a very important role for Diego and Mauritius. | | | TOM HARRY | | | malerezman la popilation less li berne par tou bann deklarason. lepep bizin vinn pli matyour ek reflichi ki kote la verite.aret ferm lizye gette ak compran se ki pe arive otour zot | | | Democrat | | | Did SSR & colleagues before the time of independence have the legal right to detach chagos & sell it? Were all the Mauritian representatives aware of the details of the detachment or was it that SSR did the deal alone to take the money alone? Issues related to the money are curiously obscure where are the detailed documents concerning the financial transactions about how much money was given from whom to whom & for which reason? To whom does this lack of information profit? It's known that when deals are made based on bribery, documents do not exist, because both the bribe giver & acceptor are equal criminals! I guess the latter tried all to 'seal the deal' and assumed the people around ssr to remain ignorant of the issue or at most try to get a chunk but never question the legality of the financial deal. It becomes clear why during the seventies ssr was very generous towards his ministers & close people. Politics of the foreign power appears to bear its fruit even now our front line people are more interested in getting some money/other privileges than questioning the legality. Many ilois just want a british nationlity just as Bancoult has got, to be able to do some work in uk. Navin (equally having british nationality) criticises the british but goes there every now and then for advice on every matter. Just follow where he will celbrate christmas/new year. Bancoult only wants to return to the 'BIOT' and is not at all questioning mauritian sovereignty over the island. Curiously, our government is allowing him to negociate with uk as if we have no ministry of external affairs. On the chagos issue, can we trust the Mauritian representatives who have british nationality? Why do they fight the case in british court with judge being paid by british? Perhaps to remain assured that the verdict will be in favour of the british! | | | Mauritian Patriot! | | | 'The UK has no doubt about its sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory, which was ceded to Britain in 1814 and has been a British dependency ever since. As we have reiterated on many occasions, we have undertaken to cede the territory to Mauritius when it is no longer required for defence purposes.
Meetings between UK and Mauritian officials on the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) were held in January and July 2009. Delegations discussed the latest legal and policy developments relating to BIOT. Both delegations set out their respective positions on sovereignty and the UK also set out how the UK needed to bear in mind its treaty obligations with the US and our ongoing need of the BIOT for defence purposes. There was mutual discussion of fishing rights, the environment, continental shelf and future visits to the territory by Chagossians.
My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has also discussed the proposed marine protected area with the Mauritian Prime Minister and Foreign Minister in November 2009.' - http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100309w0006.htm
'419. We will examine Mauritius' sovereignty claim over the British Indian Ocean Territory further (see para 69 for details of decision to consider the implications of a resettlement for the Chagossians in greater detail). At present, we conclude that any resolution to the UK's sovereignty dispute with Mauritius over the British Indian Ocean Territory must take Chagossians' wishes into account.' -
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/147/14708.htm
' 69. We conclude that there is a strong moral case for the UK permitting and supporting a return to the British Indian Ocean Territory for the Chagossians. We note the recent publication of resettlement proposals for the Outer Islands by Chagos Refugees campaigners. The FCO has argued that such a return would be unsustainable, but we find these arguments less than convincing. However, the FCO has also told us that the US has stated that a return would pose security risks to the base on Diego Garcia. We have therefore decided to consider the implications of a resettlement in greater detail.' - http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/147/14705.htm | | | Leon tupoint | | | -Où se trouve le rapport du select committee sur Diego qui a été institué après les élections de 1982? Y a-t-il quelque chose à cacher? Pourquoi ne pas le publier in toto pour éclairer notre lanterne? Nous savons que tous les dirigeants politiques quels que soient leurs bords ont la culture du secret. S'il n'y a rien à cacher, publiez ce rapport. | | | PLOUM PLOUM- CHAGOS- MYTHS AND FACTS | | | STARBRIGHT : Good , at last, someone is making comments based on facts ( your own personal observation) . I vouch on the veracity of your statements. You are spot on the Ration system, the long working shift and ownership, although the Company would favour some of them with a small plot around their hut to grow vegetables and rear chickens and pigs ( subject to good work performance, good behaviour ). Yes no money exchanged hands. The only things they had to buy was clothes. Money left from their wages would be kept on account and clothes purchases would be deducted from their account. The Balances would be handed over to them during their 2-3 visits to Mauritius. The Nordvaer- again you are spot on. Most people did not know that the Government of Mauritius gave FREE transportation to Chagossians to travel to and fro to Mauritius being a dependency Island. The travel arrangements were 100% managed by Rogers being the Sole Agent of the Chagos company. ( why did Rogers charged them for such trips is another story!). From 1968, on independence Mauritius no longer had the legal responsibilty of the transportation, hence the HV mauritius stopped voyages to the Chagos as you rightly put it. BIOT then purchased the NORDVAER to carry out the unlawful deportation. As for all those making silly and unfounded allegations concerning compensation. If only they would consult our own official documents. In all this sordid affair, at least the money side of it, is straight forward , although tardive and quite messy.
Hey Guys , no Politicians took any chagossian money. The full financial aspects are all in my bundle. By the way, some one is being ECONOMICAL WITH THE TRUTH when they state they only discover of the excision at the last stage of the Lancaster House Talks ! Fortunately our own records of 1964 and 1965 speak volume ! If lexpress.mu would approve , I shall oblige with my facts !! STARBRIGHT -How do we get in touch ? Amities. | | | Nagarjuna | | | -How does Ploum Ploum know that ALL communities agreed to the detachment of the Chagos? Was there a referendum on it? If he is right, why are we wasting our time and money fighting for its return? Perhaps Ploum Ploum could also tell us what happened to the 3 million pounds! SSR did not have the moral fibre to resist the British. I do not know why some call him 'the father of the nation'. A true 'father' would have fiercely resisted the breaking up of his home.
He had no compassion for the Chagossiens.(...) Communalism poisoned these negotiations as it will do again if a miracle takes place and the Chagos is returned to us.
| | | PLOUM PLOUM- | | | For the first time I read an analysis on the Chagos ‘s excision where the blame for this tragedy ( definitely for the Chagossians) is not put squarely on one Political leader of the time. As you put it “Mais il demeure que les dirigeants politiques mauriciens d’alors ont donné, et bien légèrement, leur soutien aux Britanniques. » In reality at the Lancaster House conference of September 1965 , 28 Mauritian Politicians participated, representing the 4 Main Political Parties (Labour, PMSD, IFB and the CAM). Our Current President was part of the IFB delegation led by Sookdeo Bissondoyal. Two of them were there as Independent Members. The 28 Delegates were NOT representing the MAURITIAN GOVERNMENT but their respective Parties. True SSR was Premier of a coalition Government in 1965, an arrangement that was put in place as agreed since the 1961 Constitution Talks in London . This semblance of autonomy was all part of the Colonial policy and timeline to grant independence to Mauritius. In 1965 SSR (despite the grandiose title of Premier WAS NOT HEAD OF THE MAURITIAN GOVERNMENT. It was the GOVERNOR GENERAL ( also present at Lancaster House )that was Head of the Government with the power to appoint Ministers (and dismissing them) . According to the 1962 agreement in London, the Party with the most MP’s would be given the title of PREMIER. And this was rightly bestowed upon SSR as the labour Party was the largest party on the Island. In 1965 at the Lancaster House talk, ALL 4 POLITICAL PARTIES AGREED IN PRINCIPLE AND TO THE BROAD TERMS TO THE EXCISION OF THE CHAGOS. The Leaders of the 4 Parties differ ONLY on the Amount of compensation that was being proposed (£3millions). Koenig, Duval and the Independent Minister Maurice Paturau wanted more money and The PMSD was also pushing for guaranteed Sugar quota from the USA, and immigration as well. Dr Ramgoolam wanted more Development grants to address the dire economic situation of the Island. It is good to remind you that after September 1965, an approval from the Council of Ministers was needed and this was done on the 5th November 1965. The Colonial Secretary Mr Anthony Greenwood had written to the Governor Sir John Shaw Rennie on the 6th October 1965 requesting “ EARLY CONFIRMATION THAT THE MAURITIUS GOVERNMENT IS WILLING TO AGREE THAT BRITAIN SHOULD NOW TAKE THE NECESSARY LEGAL STEPS TO DETACH THE CHAGOS ARCHIPELAGO FROM MAURITIUS”. And all the Ministers, all communities, majority, minority, Independent , AGREED TO THE EXCISION on the 5th November 1965. And Chagos was DULY EXCISED ON 8TH NOVEMBER 1965 BY ORDER IN COUNCIL IN LONDON. As to what our Politicians knew Of Chagos and of the Chagossians at the time, we can deduce that they knew very little but above all, they raised absolutely no questions about the fate of the Chagossians. We also know that NO Mauritian Politicians HAVE EVER SET FOOT IN THE CHAGOS. As for the legal implications of the excision we must not forget that one the Political Leader agreeing to the excision was no other than our own ATTORNEY GENERAL AND LEADER OF THE PMSD MR JULES KOENIG. Le Mauricien and L’Express of the 13th November 1965 are worth reading. To Nash2 et Jacques: If Independence or Excision were sealed in London in September 1965, why did the UK required and requested confirmation by the Council of Ministers on 5th November. Also if Independence was fait accompli in September 1965 at Lancaster House or at Downing St, why did we d have to have General Elections in 1967, 2 years after September 1965 and after the excision. And what if the PMSD had won the elections against Independence? So if Excision was so linked with Independence, do you think the UK would have returned Chagos if Duval had won in 1967? Or was it that the elections results were fixed to guarantee Independence for SSR because apparently he had so agreed with Wilson in Downing St? Allow me to quote Koeniq : “ Nous ne sommes pas contre L’excision des Iles pour les besoins militaires de L’Ouest. ( Lexpress ).
| | | narain | | | Si le gouvernement mauricien est sincère, pourquoi ne loge-t-il pas une affaire devant la cour internationale de justice. Je suis sur que Maurice gagnera. deuxième chose: pourquoi est-ce que les pourparlers entre Boolell et le ministre anglais des affaires étrangères sont restés secrets suite aux révélations de Wikileak? Croyez moi, le gouvernement mauricien ne défend pas les intérèts du pays mais prend des ordres des anglais. | | | jacky | | | -Le terme "dirigeants politiques" dont parle J-Claude de l'Estrac est trop vaste, peut-être que l'accent est mis sur les protagonistes participant aux discussions à Lancaster House. Le vrai responsable reste incontestablement Chacha et la révélation dont nous avait gratifié SAJ vient conforter cela. | | | Mauritian | | | -What are the 'louanges singers' of British doing on our territory? Living, eating & drinking on Mauritian soil but singing glory to another country .... Shakespear would have called 'ingratitude'. So far, the British have damned cared for the 'louanges' and even called the ilois by degrading terms like 'a few tarzans living there' - refer to wikileaks for details. | | | MBCTV | | | -The fact remains that the illegal dismemberment of Mauritian territory has well taken place in violation of the UN. There's no Harold Wilson, SSR, Bancoult, Ramgoolam or anybody else to deny this fact. The State of Mauritius must exercise its sovereignty over the Chagos! | | | j.c.ramtohal | | | -The Chagos--can someone tell me what happened to the 40 million dollars given the the Americans to settle the Chagissiens in Mtius? Why revere Ramgoolam (father) when he sold the Chagos for 40 million dollars which the Chagos people never got? Ramgoolam (Prime Minister) after the Chagos for Tourist purpose to enrich Mauritians like Mauritians do with Rodrigues. What a colonialist Government and people Mauritians have become. | | | Honky Tonk | | | A lump sum of money of 40.000 rupees was a hell of plenty money in 1976 and please believe me even the rich folk did not have that much of money in the Bank but the Chagossians did receive that much in compensation and they are still complaining.With RS 40.000 that time you could even buy a piece of land and build a nice concrete house for only under Rs 10.000.I can't work this out and i think most of us have forgotten that the year 1976, the workers were still earning under 10 rupees a day. | | | Elvis | | | -In 1976, a compensation of Rs 40.000 was paid to every family removed from Diego Garcia but unfortunately there were many false claimants as well and to prove this i'm gonna give you a very good proof to swallow.In 1965 the population of Mauritius was around 700 000 and today after 45 years the polulation has only increased to 1, 2 million while the Chagossians were only a number of only 1 500 in 1965 and today they are claiming to be over 5 500. Their multiplications have been 10 times higher than the rest of Mauritius. Please judge this yourself. | | | Starbright | | | -As far as I'm concerned I was a crew member of the >Mv Mauritius> in the first half of the 60s .Together with the MV Sir Jules we used to assume the cargo and supply run to Diego Garcia. The Mv Sir Jules was replaced by a small Norwegian vessel named the " Mv Nordvær" in 1968.Let me put this straight, the Islanders did not own anything overthere as money was prohibited. Their small straw huts were owned by the company. Life was no paradise on Diego and the poor workers were paid by rations of rice, tobacco, rhum, oil, sugar salt etc for a very hard day's work of 12 hours.We used to bring them back and forth - Diego -Port Louis twice or thrice a year and we knew most of them very well.I remember that it was just like heaven for them every time they set foot ashore in Port louis. | | | Sylvain J | | | -Yes the ' Ilois' have rightly their own Flag. Rightly they know WHO sold them and WHAT consideration of humanity they received in Maurtius. The ' iIlois' are a dignified and proud people and I believe the British Authorities have accepted and repaired their injustice in offering sanctuary for the Ilois. Ramgoolam Mauritius is still on a different mission...But the truth is clear enough. | | | Mauritian | | | -The Chagos is a Mauritian territory so why fight the case between Mauritian & British governments be fought in a British court with judge paid by British money? In light of Wikileaks revelations and our own commonsense, are we not simply transferring Mauritian money to UK for a case in which the verdict is almost sure to be biased in favour of the British? Would it not have been wiser if our authorities pressurised the case to be fought in a Mauritian court or at least in an international court? | | | Mauritian | | | -Wikileaks has been enlighting the world about the deals behind the curtains. The British, us & Ramgoolams are in the 'draps sales'. | | | Patriot | | | -Bancoult or Navin, both are good fighters of British interests as they both have british nationality. 1. Bancoult is seeking to return to Diego he appears not to question the British rule there and thus may be rather interested to return to the 'British territory'. Strangely, Bancoult's struggle is supported by Navin! 2. One wonders how Bancoult can be allowed to negociate with a foreign government (as if we do not have any ministry of external affairs) and that too with flag (as if a different country)!!!! 3. Navin plays the mickey on rooftops he keeps on shouting what his papa has been achieving wikileaks mentions otherwise concerning chagos issue. He is also well known to fly to London every now and then to get advice on every matter. | | | Historian | | | -History will retain that SSR sold our land to the colonial power while keeping his close colleagues away from the secret deal. England on its part equally played the dirty politics it exploited the weakness of a weak nation & may have even pressurized/bribed the leader of a new new nation to maintain its imperial interests in middle east, south/west asia, east africa & of course indian ocean. Worse, they showed how far they care for their tribe/genetically linked cowbows by gifting them the territory acquired. | | | S | | | Very important point made here. I think the group headed by Mandarin and advised by Lassémillante made the point on a few occasions. The statements made by Bancoult in front of the Foreign Affairs selection committee of the House of Commons (part of which was published in Le mauricien some 2 and a half years back) are highly revealing. In his statement, Bancoult made it clear that he is a British citizien and is not at all claiming that Diego forms part of the British territory. He goes on to criticise the way he and his folks have been treated by Mauritian authorities in Mauritius.
But some could have made the point that had he not gone before English courts as a British citizen, he would have lacked the necessary standing. However, one can easily put this point aside. He could have been to the English court as a British without explicitly denying Mauritian sovereignty over the Chagos. In that way, he would be using his British citizenship to access courts and thats it. He could also have concentrated his efforts at the level of the Human Rights Committee of the UN and the ICJ without even having to use any British citizenship.
Mr Bancoult's fight isn't worth of any support from Mauritius. | | | Jacky de Maroussem | | | On ne peut pas reprocher aux fils les erreurs de leur pères mais ils devraient avoir pour les Chagossiens un profond désir de réparer. Bon combat messieurs ! Comme ils sont au pouvoir, une dose d'humilité ne peut que les faire grandir. | | | chitchat | | | The family names mentioned by NASH2 could be democratically elected to govern the country as a family business within the next decade and while DAVE has made the readers aware of "FINDING COMMITTEE DU GOUVERNEMENT60-0. May I also suggest "DEPOPULATION OF THE CHAGOS" BY Mark Curtis and Jimmy Wales which readers may find not only very revealing but also perhaps factual, due to the secrecy of the deal and what happened to the allegedly substantial £3 million (1967 exchange rate)
compensation paid for the resettlement of the Chagossians on Mauritian soil?.
| | | jincy D'Olo | | | We will never win, although wrong has been done against our nation and worst to the people of Chagos etc.Unless we develop nuclear arsenal, and fight the poms out. | | | dave | | | LISEZ LE RAPPORT DU FACT -FINDING COMMITTEE DU GOUVERNEMENT 60-0. RAMGOOLAM PERE (...) A TROQUE L'INDEPENDANCE POUR UN MALHEUREUX 3m DE LIVRES. IUI ET SES MINISTRES ONT "MENTI" A L'ASSEMBLEE NATIONALE. NOU PAS TI CONNE. | | | Jean Baptiste Say | | | -Je n'ai pas l'habitude de vous complimenter mais cette fois-ci, je suis d'accord avec vous. Le combat de Bancoult c'est contre une 'injustice' de Sa Majeste La Reine d'Angleterre contre quelques-uns de ses citoyens groupés au sein du Groupe Refugiés Chagos. Le vrai combat du peuple chagossien c'est Mandarin qui le mène avec l'aide d'un homme de loi mauricien : Me Herve Lassemillante. Un point c'est tout !!! | | | Nash2 | | | -La vérité enfin grâce à Wikileaks. La soi-disant guerre de l'Indépendance dont Navin nous "corde" les oreilles n'était finalement qu'un accord essentiél que les pères de Navin, Pravind, Shakeel, Xavier ti alle donne Anglais pour detache Diego de Moris.Apres capave toujours dire ki pas ti conne ou pas au courant. | | | Jacques | | | -Voilà qui relance les vérités sur la question des Chagos. De l'Estrac a aussi étudié cette question et a peut-être lu les correspondances diplomatiques de l'époque qui ont été rendues publiques par le gouvernement anglais (ici c'est encore secret d'Etat). Les Anglais on fait un deal mais les dirigeants mauriciens d'alors, en l'occurrence Ramgoolam et les autres, ont donné leur accord pour donner Chagos en echange de l'indépendance. J'ai pu lire tous les documents qui ont été déclassifiés et il est clair que Ramgoolam a consenti en toute conaissance de cause pour vendre les Chagos. Cependant, on avait mentioné une somme d'argent comme dédommagement environ £2 millions mais ça reste un mystère: où est parti l'argent, quelqu'un parmi ces Mauriciens a bien volé cet argent car les Anglais ont bien payé. | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|