Topic: Bunch of corrupt Lords - Chagos problem

[GBF]

These corrupt idiots then go around the middle east bombing countries for trying or even thinking of invading other countries.  I hope the human rights court put a heavy punishment on the british government.

For those who do know much about the Chagos Archipelago problem, here is a little summary:

During colonial era Britain used to own Chagos, and then in order to give independence they asked the prime minister to be of Mauritius to sell it to them for £3m in exchange for independence and a "sir" title.  UK then loan it to US in order for the latter to set up a base there.  The yanks gased the dogs and other animals in order to force the inhabitants to leave the country and they got relocated in Seychelles, Mauritius and other near by islands.  Those people lives in very poor conditions and do not get a lot of help because they belong to no one in a way.  Recently the inhabitants put a case to court in order for them to return to their islands and they even accepted they will not occupy all the islands.  The decision was granted but then the government put an appeal which the Chagos people lost.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/oct/23/chagos-islands-human-rights

Families evicted from their homes on an island in the Indian Ocean lost their long-running battle to return yesterday when the law lords ruled by a majority of three to two in favour of the Foreign Office.

The islanders, some of whom had travelled from their current home in Mauritius to hear the decision, were removed from Chagos to accommodate the US military base on Diego Garcia in the 1970s.

They greeted yesterday's ruling with dismay. "We are deeply disappointed," said the Chagossians' leader, Olivier Bancoult. "But we will never give up."

Lords Hoffmann, Carswell and Rodger found in favour of the Foreign Office in its appeal against earlier court rulings that the Chagossians had a right to return. Lords Bingham and Mance dissented from the majority decision.

In his judgment, Hoffmann said the Chagossians had been removed with "a callous disregard" for their interests, but that did not affect the case now.

"The right of abode is a creature of the law. The law gives it and the law may take it away," he wrote, adding: "The deed has been done, the wrong confessed, compensation agreed and paid."

Hoffmann said the UK government's obligations to the Chagossians ended in 1982 when it paid them compensation. He noted that the government had said it was acting "in the interests of the defence of the realm, diplomatic relations with the US and the use of public funds in supporting any settlement on the islands".

But Bingham, in his dissenting judgment, wrote: "It is not, I think, suggested that those whose homes are in former colonial territories may be treated in a way which would not be permissible in the case of citizens in this country."

He challenged the government's claim that security issues had to be considered. "Despite highly imaginative letters written by American officials to strengthen the secretary of state's hand in this litigation, there was no reason to apprehend that the security situation had changed."

The Chagossians, their legal team and their supporters lambasted the decision. "How can we be expected to live outside our birthplace when there are other people living there now?" said Bancoult.

The Chagossians are now considering taking their case to the European court of human rights. They are also looking at other ways to influence the government, which has spent £5m fighting the action.

"The government has finally scored a narrow victory, but the victory has been achieved at a great price," said Richard Gifford, the solicitor who has acted for the Chagossians in the action, originally launched in 1998.

He said that it was now up to parliament and public opinion to play their part so that the Chagossians could return.

David Snoxell, the former high commissioner to Mauritius, said: "This would have been a great opportunity to right a great wrong and wipe out a national shame."

The foreign secretary, David Miliband, said the government's decision to appeal against the earlier decisions had been vindicated. He added: "It is appropriate on this day that I should repeat the government's regret at the way the resettlement of the Chagossians was carried out."

The Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn, a leading campaigner for the Chagossians, said he was saddened by the ruling and added: "I hope the foreign secretary understands that Olivier Bancoult will never give up."

[The Gulleysucker]

Tragically, it's just not going to happen and here's the reason why for those who are unaware....

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=diego+garcia&sll=2.317483,72.883301&sspn=9.528293,12.810059&ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=-7.297258,72.409859&spn=0.149838,0.200157&z=13

KCs BUFFs and B2 Hangers

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=diego+garcia&sll=2.317483,72.883301&sspn=9.528293,12.810059&ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=-7.313465,72.417412&spn=0.009365,0.01251&z=17

Maritime PrePosition Squadron no 2

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=diego+garcia&sll=2.317483,72.883301&sspn=9.528293,12.810059&ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=-7.279464,72.43535&spn=0.074922,0.100079&z=14

GEODSS

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=diego+garcia&sll=2.317483,72.883301&sspn=9.528293,12.810059&ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=-7.271546,72.367158&spn=0.018731,0.02502&z=16

Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Garcia and weep for the way these poor unfortunate people have become pawns in the great game of Imperialism (oops sorry, I meant bringing Democracy to 3rd world nations)

Not until the US has got the "In your face from Outta Space" systems up and running will somewhere like this ever be returned to the people.

[SalisburyRed]

Sadly, I think The Gulleysucker is right. Still a disgrace though.

[conman]

saddening..
hope they get it back somehow..

[wistycastor]

It's not right, but it's what happens when you can't defend what's yours. Ask the Aboriginees and the American Indians and the Incas and Arthur Dent.

[The Gulleysucker]

Chexit

Chagos Islands dispute: UK obliged to end control - UN

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47358602

Good.

While my views haven't changed on the likelyhood of much progress due to the post I made up above way back, little has changed on the ground, however I think this may be an opportunity to pass the buck to the US and let them come to an arrangement, if they can, with Mauritius and the exiled inhabitants.

[TepidT2O]

Ok, let’s be honest.  Who’s ever heard of them?

[Red-Soldier]

Ok, let’s be honest.  Who’s ever heard of them?

Is this a serious question?

[Mumm-Ra]

Is this a serious question?

I hadn't, if that helps

[Elmo!]

Ok, let’s be honest.  Who’s ever heard of them?

 

[Gerry Attrick]

Snippet from the BBC article;

The UK Foreign Office said: "This is an advisory opinion, not a judgment."

It added it would look "carefully" at the detail of the opinion, which is not legally binding.

Sounds like something else, but I can't quite put my finger on what...

[TepidT2O]

Is this a serious question?

I’m afraid so.  I wouldn’t have known they existed otherwise..

[Red-Soldier]

I’m afraid so.  I wouldn’t have known they existed otherwise..

That's fair enough.

I read about the plight of the Chagos Islanders about 10 years ago.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Ok, let’s be honest.  Who’s ever heard of them?

I had come across this, perhaps 15 years ago. And recall Robin Cook's involvement in circumventing the judgement of the court that the Chago Islands should be returned to the Chago Islanders.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/20/chagos-islands-court-ruling

[Jiminy Cricket]

I hadn't, if that helps

Loads of people haven't. It was extremely under-reported in the UK at the time. And, it seems, little reported upon since (I've been out of the UK, so wouldn't really know).

[Iska]

I do know a bit about them - the islands were uninhabited before they were brought there (as slaves and then as workers) by the French and British about 200 years ago.  Not sure that that really makes very much practical difference to the people themselves today - they’d still been there for generations after all, but it was a few generations rather than them being indigenous people deprived of ancient ancestral homelands, which is how it usually gets reported.  It’s quite interesting though that the whole affair is a product of colonialism from start to finish, and how that should be unravelled today.

[CornerFlag]

I'd heard of them a while ago, and had my utmost sympathy for the Chagossians for the longest time.  And still do.

[Ray K]

I mean, they planted a flag...

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/hYeFcSq7Mxg" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/hYeFcSq7Mxg</a>

[ShakaHislop]

Chagos Islands dispute: UN backs end to UK control

The UN has passed a resolution demanding the UK return control of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius.

In the non-binding vote in the General Assembly in New York, 116 states were in favour and only six against, a major diplomatic blow to the UK.

Fifty-six states, including France and Germany, abstained.

Mauritius says it was forced to give up the Indian Ocean group - now a British overseas territory - in 1965 in exchange for independence.

In a statement to the BBC, the UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) said Britain did not recognise Mauritius' claim to sovereignty, but would stand by an earlier commitment to hand over control of the islands to Mauritius when they were no longer needed for defence purposes.

The US, Hungary, Israel, Australia and the Maldives were the states voting with the UK against the resolution.

It comes months after the UN's high court advised that the UK should leave the islands "as rapidly as possible".

UK warns of setting precedent

Analysis by Nada Tawfik, BBC News, New York

The fundamental question before the General Assembly was whether the decades-long dispute was at its heart a matter of decolonisation, or a bilateral sovereignty issue to be worked out between the UK and Mauritius alone.

The vote was decisive, with 115 countries standing with Mauritius.

Former colonies were also clear in their position. India said support for decolonisation was one of the most significant contributions that the UN had made towards the promotion of fundamental human rights.

UK ambassador to the UN Karen Pierce, along with the United States, warned that the vote would set a precedent that should be of concern to all member states with their own sovereignty disputes.

Britain purchased the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 for £3m, creating a region known as the British Indian Ocean Territory.

Between 1967 and 1973, it evicted the islands' entire population to make way for a joint military base with the US, which is still in place on Diego Garcia.

US planes have been sent from the base to bomb Afghanistan and Iraq. The facility was also reportedly used as a "black site" by the CIA to interrogate terrorism suspects. In 2016, the lease for the base was extended until 2036.

"The joint UK-US defence facility on the British Indian Ocean Territory helps to keep people in Britain and around the world safe from terrorism, organised crime and piracy," the FCO said.

Before Wednesday's vote, Mauritian Prime Minister Pravid Kumar Jug-Nauth told the General Assembly the forcible eviction of Chagossians was akin to a crime against humanity.

However, he said Mauritius would allow the military base to continue operating "in accordance with international law", if it were given control of the islands.

Mr Jug-Nauth said this would give the facility a "higher degree of legal certainty" for the future.

The UK has maintained that Mauritius gave up the territory freely in return for a range of benefits.

Ambassador Pierce has insisted that the issue should be resolved only by the countries involved.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48371388

[ShakaHislop]

Chagos Islands dispute: UK misses deadline to return control

The UK has been called an illegal colonial occupier by Mauritius after it ignored a deadline to return control of an overseas territory to the island nation.

The UN had given the UK six months to give up control of the Chagos Islands - but that period has now passed.

Mauritius says it was forced to trade the small archipelago in the Indian Ocean in 1965 for independence.

The UK says it does not recognise Mauritius' claim to sovereignty.

Britain's Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) insists it has every right to hold onto the islands - one of which, Diego Garcia, is home to a US military airbase.

"The UK has no doubt as to our sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), which has been under continuous British sovereignty since 1814," it said in a statement.

"Mauritius has never held sovereignty over the BIOT and the UK does not recognise its claim."

But Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn said it was important to return the islands "as a symbol of the way in which we wish to behave in international law".

He added: "I am looking forward to being in government to right one of the wrongs of history."

The Chagos Archipelago was separated from Mauritius in 1965, when Mauritius was still a British colony. Britain purchased it for £3m - creating the BIOT.

Mauritius claims it was forced to give it up in exchange for independence, which it gained in 1968.

In May, the UN General Assembly voted overwhelming in favour of the Chagos Islands being returned - with 116 states backing the move and only six against.

The UN said that the decolonisation of Mauritius "was not conducted in a manner consistent with the right to self-determination" and that therefore the "continued administration... constitutes a wrongful act".

The UN resolution came only three months after the UN's high court advised the UK should leave the islands "as rapidly as possible".

As the six-month period came to a close, Mauritian Prime Minister Pravind Jugnauth said the UK was now an illegal colonial occupier.

Analysis
By Andrew Harding
Southern Africa correspondent

Over the decades Mauritius has staked its claim, and finally - particularly after the Brexit vote - Britain's traditional allies in the international community have started to desert Britain, to abstain or to vote against it at the UN.

And the UN is now taking pretty significant steps to say: "Britain you are behaving appallingly, this is still colonialism - give it back."

Britain has ignored those calls - so what might any repercussions look like?

Sanctions would be slow, incremental and largely institutional - in the sense that Britain is going to find itself squeezed at institutions that it has traditionally seen as very important.

Britain no longer has a judge on 14-seat International Court of Justice in The Hague, and it's going to start to see UN maps reflecting the legal fact that the UN sees this islands as belonging to Mauritius.

The deadline is not binding, so no sanctions or immediate punishment will follow - but that could change.

At the time of the UN resolution, the FCO said the UK did not recognise Mauritius' claim to sovereignty, but would stand by an earlier commitment to hand over control of the islands to Mauritius when they were no longer needed for defence purposes.

Between 1968 and 1974, Britain forcibly removed thousands of Chagossians from their homelands and sent them more than 1,000 miles away to Mauritius and the Seychelles, where they faced extreme poverty and discrimination.

Many moved to the UK in the hope of a better life.

Britain then invited the US to build a military base on Diego Garcia.

US planes have been sent from the base to bomb Afghanistan and Iraq. The facility was also reportedly used as a "black site" by the CIA to interrogate terrorism suspects. In 2016, the lease for the base was extended until 2036.

The UK has repeatedly apologised for the forced evictions, which Mr Jugnauth has said were akin to a crime against humanity.

In 2002, the British Overseas Territories (BOTs) Act granted British citizenship to resettled Chagossians born between 1969 and 1982. But the 13-year window has left some families divided.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50511847

[BoRed]

For what it's worth ...

Jeremy Corbyn said he would “right one of the wrongs of history” by granting sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius.

The UK’s refusal to end its occupation of the Indian Ocean archipelago is expected to be marked by protests outside the UK high commission in the Mauritian capital, Port Louis. The protest is organised by those who were forcibly deported more than 40 years ago and their descendants.

The government has defied a UN deadline to hand the Chagos Islands to Mauritius by today.

Speaking to reporters at a campaign even in Stoke-on-Trent, Corbyn was asked whether a Labour government would accept the UN’s ruling on the sovereignty of the islands.

He said:

Yes, absolutely. I’ve been involved in the Chagos campaign for a very long time. What happened to the Chagos islanders was utterly disgraceful. [They were] forcibly removed from their own islands, unfortunately, by this country. They need a full apology. They need adequate compensation. They’ve had some, but I don’t believe it’s sufficient.

And I believe the right of return to those islands is absolutely important as a symbol of the way in which we wish to behave in international law.

So yes, we will carry that out. And I’m looking forward to being in government to right one of the wrongs of history.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/nov/22/general-election-2019-corbyn-tells-voters-to-make-sure-their-voice-is-heard-live-news?page=with:block-5dd7b87b8f083aa6d5788fa8#block-5dd7b87b8f083aa6d5788fa8

[Red-Soldier]

This is something I have a fair bit of interest in.

Of course it's very bad for the Chagos Islanders, but there's been a big win here for the marine and island wildlife, simply because they haven't been disturbed for years.

MoD sites are generally fantastic for wildlife, due to the absence of people.

It's an interesting case study.