The Politics of Chagos: Part Played by Parliament and the Courts Towards Resolving the Chagos Tragedy

Abstract

The British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) was created for political reasons. Only a political solution based on compromise and negotiation can bring about a resolution of this maelstrom of issues which have dogged the UK for over 50 years. A combination of political and legal pressure is the only way to persuade HMG that an overall settlement is possible and in the national interest. Chagos history abounds with policy failures, myth and deception. Litigation and the courts help redress the political deficit. While proclaiming the sanctity of international law the Foreign and Commonwealth Office ignores, cherry picks and splits hairs where it conflicts with entrenched policies. The Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group has helped focus parliamentary, media and public attention on the issues, otherwise the preserve of the legal system and academia. William Hague said in 2010 “It is not in our character as a nation to have a foreign policy without a conscience; neither is it in our interests.” Parliamentary, public and international pressure will continue until the Chagossians are allowed to return.

Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group

Appendices

Annex A: Statement by the Chagos Islands (BIOT) APPG on 16 November 2016

The APPG was established in 2008 and has 51 members representing all ten political parties in Parliament. The Group held its 58th meeting on 16 November and considered the written ministerial statement issued 2 h earlier, concerning the Government’s decision not to allow the Chagossians to resettle in their homeland. Three ministers of state from the FCO (Baroness Anelay), Defence (Earl Howe) and Department of International Development (Lord Bates) had several weeks earlier been invited for a discussion on the issues regarding resettlement. Members were shocked to discover that this discussion had been pre-empted by the written statement. The Government had been telling Parliament that a decision on resettlement would not be announced until the end of the year. The reason for announcing it on 16 November could only be to close off discussion of the issues. This looked like a fait accompli. Members also expressed indignation that the decision had been leaked to the Guardian the day before it was made available to Parliament.

Members expressed much disappointment at this decision. They felt it had ignored the arguments put by the Group and experts over the years concerning viability, sustainability, cost, funding, defence and security, international human rights obligations and the views of the Courts which since 2000 had deplored the treatment of the Chagossians. They did not accept the Government’s premise that feasibility, defence and security interests and cost were sufficient grounds for not agreeing to a pilot resettlement, recommended by the KPMG feasibility study. The written statement lacked any reasoned argument as to why resettlement could not be implemented.

Members appealed to ministers to think again on the basis of other studies, the KPMG report and further discussions with the Group. They were well aware that the US was not opposed to resettlement and that any security concerns were easily manageable. Given that, with the agreement of the US, the KPMG consultants had visited Diego Garcia and that this island was their preferred option it was not logical to deploy defence and security as a reason against resettlement.

The APPG felt that the costs and style of resettlement had been significantly exaggerated and that in any case the Overseas Territories were a first call on the Aid Programme. The British tax payer would not fund the entire cost as the ministerial statement had implied. The US, who do not pay rent for the base would no doubt contribute. The Group took the view that the continuing damage to the UK’s reputation for the promotion of human rights far outweighed the cost and difficulties of trying out a resettlement.

The Group questioned whether the Government had properly considered the Supreme Court conclusions that in the light of the KPMG study maintaining the ban on Chagossian return may no longer be lawful, and that if the Government failed to restore the right of abode it would be open to Chagossians to mount a new challenge by way of judicial review. They noted that the ministerial statement had not referred to the right of abode which should be restored whether or not resettlement was allowed. Some Chagossians would only wish to visit their homeland and should be able to do so whenever they wanted.

Members questioned if it was really in the tax payers’ interest to prolong litigation for several more years. 17 years of expensive litigation, amounting to several million pounds, not to mention the cost of Whitehall staff and resources, could have gone towards the cost of resettlement. They also thought that it was not in the national interest for the international and national campaigns in support of the Chagossians, to continue with increasing opprobrium and negative publicity for the UK. This undermined the UK’s human rights record and the British sense of fair play. Why should Chagossians, who are British, be treated any differently from other British nationals of Overseas Territories? Members noted that on 24 October, UN Day, Baroness Anelay had referred to the UK’s “unwavering commitment to human rights”.

The Group also felt that the £40 million of project money that was being offered to the Chagossians would be better spent on funding resettlement. This was nearly twice the capital cost of resettlement estimated in 2008 by Dr John Howell, former Director of the Overseas Development Institute. But it was for Chagossians to decide. The Group would wait to hear their reactions before supporting anything less than a pilot resettlement.

Annex B: Statement on 26 April 2017 by the Chagos Islands (BIOT) APPG on Prospects for Resettlement and Ways of Strengthening the Bonds Between the Chagossians and Their Homeland

The Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group was established in December 2008 to help bring about a resolution of the issues concerning the future of the Chagossian people and the Chagos Islands. On 26 April, at its 62nd and final meeting of this Parliament, the Group considered the prospects for the Chagossian people.

On 16 November 2016 the Government rejected resettlement and announced a 10 year £40 million package (to include visits to the Islands) for Chagossian communities where ever they are established. In Mauritius the offer is interpreted as an incentive to Chagossians to remain in exile. The Chagos Refugees Group has therefore said it will not participate in the organised visit being planned by the FCO for later this year because it will be funded from the package which it rejects. After 5 months little or no progress appears to have been made on agreeing and spending the package. In the face of the Government’s rejection of resettlement the APPG resolved to continue the struggle until a pilot resettlement is achieved and Chagossians can exercise their right to determine their own future. But it would continue to look for ways of finding a compromise acceptable to both the Chagossians and the Government.

One such compromise was the restoration of the right of abode. Foreign Secretary Robin Cook had restored the right of abode following the High Court judgment of November 2000, while excluding Diego Garcia. So between November 2000 and the Orders in Council of June 2004, which once again banned the Chagossians from entering BIOT, the right of abode was operative and could have been exercised had there been available transport to and facilities in the Outer Islands. As Lord Bingham (presiding Law Lord) put it in his 2008 judgment “It cannot be doubted that the right (of abode) was of intangible value, and the smaller its practical value the less reason to take it away”. There is nothing to stop the FCO restoring the right of abode as distinct from the right of resettlement. It would demonstrate that the Government is serious about wanting to meet the aspirations of the Chagossian people and also its goodwill towards them and respect for fundamental human rights. It would cost the FCO nothing while redressing its damaged human rights record and reputation. The APPG urges the Government not to let the ongoing litigation be an excuse for not restoring the right of abode on moral, ethical and political grounds.

In December the APPG decided that until a future government was willing to support a pilot resettlement, as recommended by KPMG, the Group should identify incremental ways of strengthening the bonds between the Chagossians and their homeland. They considered the scope for compromise in the face of the Government’s rejection of resettlement. Employment on the base as contract workers, without their families, was not a substitute. Rather Chagossians could live and work in the islands in a variety of capacities such as MPA management, undertaking conservation, monitoring of marine and bird life and environmental changes, services to scientific expeditions, staffing a scientific station and leisure activities for base personnel. This could, for example, be running boat trips, snorkelling, diving, fishing, guided walks, sports, making handicrafts for sale. Also there was work concerning the history and heritage of the Islanders, such as establishing and staffing a heritage centre/museum, restoring ruins and clearing graveyards. In time this could develop into a local tourism industry for the 4000 staff on the base, some of whom might like to work with Chagossians in a voluntary capacity. Members felt that this would appeal at least to the 41 British personnel stationed there. The Group considered that it would make an ideal programme for the £40 million assistance package over the next decade and commended these suggestions to Chagossians, FCO, MOD and DFID.

The APPG will be re-established after the election and continue to promote its aim of enabling the Chagossians to return to their homeland. It expresses the hope that in their manifestos the political parties will support justice for the Chagossians and that the next Government will give priority to bringing an end to their 50 year exile.