There is amisconception that there is aformal “lease” between Britain and the US concerning the use of the Chagos Archipelago. In fact, there is no such thing –no rent is paid by the Americans for the use of the territory, for example. DThere is amisconception that there is aformal “lease” between Britain and the US concerning the use of the Chagos Archipelago. In fact, there is no such thing –no rent is paid by the Americans for the use of the territory, for example. D DESPITE the flurry of media stories earlier this year about the use of a British territory, Diego Garcia, by the US for the purposes of “ extraordinary rendition” it is remarkable how few otherwise politically literate people in the UK and US have any idea about the whereabouts of the Chagos Islands, the fate that befell the people who once lived there, or how the territory was illegally excised from the colony of Mauritius in 1965 before its independence in 1968. This is beginning to change in part because of the recent publication of two books, Island of Shame by anthropologist David Vine and United States and Britain in Diego Garcia: The Future of a Controversial Base by environmental legal expert Peter H Sand. The open letter from Jean- Marie G le Clezio, the 2008 winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature, to President Obama in October has also highlighted the issue, of course. But the proposal announced in November by the British government to turn the British Indian Ocean Territory into a Marine Protected Area ( MPA) in order to preserve one of the planet’s last great ocean wildernesses is likely to give the issue of the Chagos Islanders’ right of return to their homeland and Mauritius’ claim to sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago a much higher international profile than before. It is sometimes difficult to read correctly the motives of the British Foreign & Commonwealth Office which underpin its policy pronouncements. However, in an interview earlier this year on the geo- political context of the MPA for New Statesman Peter H Sand stated: “ Over the past six years, there has been an extraordinary scramble for ocean space by several big powers, all claiming jurisdiction far beyond their national territorial waters under the noble pretext of nature conservation. In April 2003, French President Chirac declared a 60- mile ‘ ecological protection zone’ in the Mediterranean, followed in September 2003 by the British Prime Minister Blair's proclamation of a 200- mile ‘ environment protection and preservation zone’ in the Chagos Archipelago, only to be outdone in June 2006 and January 2009 by US President Bush proclaiming several even larger ‘ national marine monuments’ around US atolls in the Pacific Ocean… When I started to do research on all those new ‘ green’ ocean reserves, it turned out that most of them happened to enclose or adjoin some strategically important military bases – such as Guam, Wake, Johnston and Midway in the Pacific, or Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.” There are three crucial points that are relevant to the present discussion: firstly, there is a widespread misconception that there is a formal “ lease” between Britain and the US concerning the use of the Chagos Archipelago. In fact, there is no such thing – no rent is paid by the Americans for the use of the territory, for example. The agreement between the two countries signed over 40 years ago was simply an exchange of letters in which Britain gave permission for the US to establish a military base on Diego Garcia, the largest and southernmost island in the Archipelago. The arrangement is best viewed as an integral and very important aspect of the “ special relationship” between the world’s only superpower and its main European ally. Secondly, the US never asked the UK to evacuate all of the islands; it simply wanted Diego Garcia uninhabited. It was the British authorities who decided to forcibly remove at least 1600 indigenous inhabitants between 1968 and 1973 from the Archipelago and dump them at the docks in Mauritius and the Seychelles in what can only be described as one of the most shameful acts in recent colonial history. And it is for this reason that it is Britain ( rather than, say, Mauritius or the Seychelles) which bears primary responsibility for the resultant misery and suffering inflicted on the Chagos Islanders. Thirdly, at the time of the original agreement between Britain and the US it was thought prudent that the remaining Chagos Islands should remain available in case it was deemed necessary to expand the military facilities in the future. Yet the outer islands of the Archipelago have never been used for military purposes, and it is evident that the US has no such intention, otherwise it would have done so at some point in the last 43 years. The present position seems clear enough, then. There is no sensible defence or security reason why the outer Chagos Islands which lie around 140 miles north of Diego Garcia should not be transferred to Mauritius. Such a move would have an obvious advantage in that it could pave the way for the resettlement of those Chagos Islanders and their descendants who wish to return to their homeland. The objection put forward in some circles that any permanent settlement of a small number of people living on some of the outer islands like Peros Banhos and Salomon could somehow jeopardise or threaten the pristine qualities of the proposed MPA is frankly ludicrous. In any case, policies that safeguard the environment and regulate habitation, fishing rights, mineral extraction and travel could be agreed beforehand by all interested parties and put in place well before any of the Islanders return. The agreement between Britain and the US over the use of the British Indian Ocean Territory comes up for renewal in 2016, and if either party wants to suggest changes they must do so by 2014. However, as with all bilateral agreements there is nothing to stop either country asking the other if it would be willing to make changes at an earlier date. It would be very easy, therefore, for the UK authorities to say to the US that they would now like to re- negotiate the 1966 agreement. If the US agreed to this all well and good; if it did not then the British government could make its proposals in 2014, and could give notice, for example, that they planned to transfer sovereignty of the outer Chagos Islands to Mauritius in 2016. Interestingly, the British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, has been very keen in recent months to stress the importance and significance of “ treaty obligations” between Britain and the US in relation to the use of the British Indian Ocean Territory. This is a red herring. No one should be in any doubt that the use of the grandiose term “ treaty obligations” is a blatant attempt to gain an advantage over Mauritius and other interested parties before substantive negotiations get under way. It should also be pointed out that in theory, the UK could say that it will not renew the agreement in 2016 thus paving the way for the closure of the Diego Garcia base. Realistically this is not going to happen while the Indian Ocean is of such strategic military and commercial value to the US and its allies ( especially because decades old rivals China and India are now vying for naval supremacy in order to secure the shipping lanes transporting goods and raw materials between Africa and Asia). It is certain, therefore, that the US will be provided by Britain with a further 30 years use of the island for its military use which is in any case provided for in the 1966 exchange of letters. On his return just over a week ago from the Commonwealth Summit in Trinidad and Tobago Mauritian Prime Minister Navin Ramgoolam stated that any discussion on the proposed MPA which ignored the exiled Chagos Islanders’ right of return and his country’s claim to sovereignty over the Archipelago was “ out of the question”. He also said that “ the British Prime Minister understood our point of view”. Mauritius would be well advised to keep Gordon Brown to his word when negotiations with the UK and the US begin in some form in the New Year. Successive British governments have been able to get away with a policy that is not only in breach of international law but which has also wrecked the lives of the indigenous population which once inhabited the Chagos Islands simply because they have been able to. For the first time since independence Mauritius has a real opportunity of holding its former colonial power to account. It should do so. Dr Sean Carey is Research Fellow at the Centre for Research on Nationalism, Ethnicity and Multiculturalism ( CRONEM) at Roehampton University « The US never asked the UK to evacuate all of the islands; it simply wanted Diego Garcia uninhabited. It was the British authorities who decided to forcibly remove at least 1 600 indigenous inhabitants between 1968 and 1973 from the archipelago... » Sean CAREY |