Chagos to be subject of International Court Advisory Opinion

MEETINGS COVERAGE

GA/11924

22 JUNE 2017

• GENERAL ASSEMBLY
 
• PLENARY

SEVENTY-FIRST SESSION, 88TH MEETING (AM)

General Assembly Adopts Resolution Seeking International Court’s Advisory Opinion on Pre-independence Separation of Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius

Minister Cites Need to Complete Decolonization Process as United Kingdom Says It Will Cede Territory When No Longer Needed for Defence

The General Assembly requested today that the International Court of Justice render an advisory opinion on the legal consequences arising from the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius before that Indian Ocean island nation’s independence in the 1960s.

By a recorded vote of 94 in favour to 15 against, with 65 abstentions, the Assembly adopted the text contained in document A/71/L.73, recalling its 1965 resolution in which it asked the United Kingdom not to dismember the territory of Mauritius ahead of its independence in 1968.  It asked the Court whether the decolonization of Mauritius had been carried out in a lawful manner, given the Archipelago’s subsequent separation.

Also by the text, the Assembly asked the Court to advise on the consequences arising from the United Kingdom’s continuing administration of the Chagos Archipelago under international law, including the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.  It pointed, in particular, to Mauritius’ inability to resettle its nationals, including those of Chagossian origin, on the islands.

Speaking before the action, Anerood Jugnauth, Mauritius’ Minister Mentor and Minister for Defence and Rodrigues – also a former Prime Minister and President – said “a vote for the draft resolution […] is a vote in support of completing the process of decolonization, respect for international law and the rule of law”.  Recalling that that he had been accompanied by Chagossians forcibly evicted from their islands following the separation, he emphasized that his country had never accepted the situation, and had not been in a position to consent before gaining statehood, even if the United Kingdom claimed that compensation had been given for its consent.

Describing the Chagos Archipelago as part of his country since at least the eighteenth century, when France had governed it, he said the entire territory had been ceded to the United Kingdom in 1810, and kept intact until the unlawful excision of the Chagos Archipelago on 8 November 1965.  He added that information had come to light about British efforts to manipulate the international community at the time, and to present the United Nations with a fait accompli regarding the separation.  Those facts alone should warrant a fresh look at the situation, he emphasized.

The United Kingdom’s representative called for withdrawal of the draft resolution in order to keep a more constructive path open.  Emphasizing that his country would not consent to having a bilateral dispute submitted for judicial settlement, he recalled that, in recent talks, the United Kingdom’s offers had clearly signalled acknowledgement of Mauritius’ long-term interest in the Archipelago, offering a framework for joint management of all its islands except Diego Garcia, the site of a military base.

He went on to state that United Kingdom had decided against resettling the Chagossians on the grounds of feasibility, cost, defence and security interests.  However, it was implementing a $50 million support package designed to improve their livelihoods.  The focus of Mauritius throughout recent talks had not been on the Chagossians, but rather on transferring sovereignty, he said.  However, since the territory had been created for defence purposes in a joint agreement with the United States, sovereignty would revert to Mauritius when the territory was no longer required for that purpose.

Other speakers voiced respect for the principles of self-determination of peoples, the sovereignty of States and international law.  Those opposing the resolution underlined the need for a consensual bilateral approach to resolving disputes between States, pointing out that the Court did not have mandatory jurisdiction in such issues.  The representative of the United States said the Assembly’s action represented the circumvention of normal procedure, describing it as a “back-door” way to get the issue on the Court’s docket.

Many of those supporting the text prioritized the need to complete the decolonization process.  India’s representative, while conceding his country’s security concerns relating to the Indian Ocean, said that, on balance, it was a matter of principle for India to uphold the decolonization process, as well as respect for the sovereignty of nations.

El Salvador’s representative called for broadening the Court’s jurisdiction, pointing out that his small country lacked large armies and nuclear weapons.  “It is international law that protects us,” he pointed out.

On the budgetary implications of the resolution, a Secretariat official reported that it was not possible to determine an exact figure, but based on recent precedents, the cost of an advisory opinion concerning the Chagos Archipelago could range from $450,000 to $600,000.

Also speaking today were representatives of Congo, Venezuela (for the Non‑Aligned Movement), Angola (for the Southern African Development Community), Egypt, Kenya, United Republic of Tanzania, Chile, Croatia, France, Trinidad and Tobago, Australia, Uruguay, Germany, China, Mexico, New Zealand, Sweden, Canada, Portugal, Israel, Brazil, Myanmar and Indonesia.

Before the action on the resolution, the Assembly paid tribute to the late President Baldwin Lonsdale of Vanuatu.  Following a minute of silence and a statement by the Assembly President, the following delegates delivered statements:  Congo (on behalf of the Group of African States), Mongolia (on behalf of the Group of Asia-Pacific States), Romania (on behalf of the Group of Eastern European States), Honduras (on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States), Australia (on behalf of the Western European and other States), United States (the host country) and Vanuatu.

READ THE FULL REPORT HERE

Free association is key to solving Puerto Rico’s problems

THE HILL

LUIS NIEVES

OPINION CONTRIBUTOR

Bullets and boots on the ground gave birth to the political relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States. From 1898 until the 1940’s, this American territory was ‘the poorhouse of the Caribbean’. 

Postwar politics paved the way for the creation of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. As recognized recently by the Supreme Court, “Congress in 1952 relinquished its control over [the Commonwealth’s] local affairs[,] grant[ing] Puerto Rico a measure of autonomy comparable to that possessed by the States.”

Fast forward six decades. The end of federal incentives for manufacturing in 2006 precipitated a severe economic depression. Hundreds of thousands emigrated. Years of mismanagement condemned future generations with a $70 billion debt, which led Congress to impose a powerful Financial Oversight and Management Board over the Commonwealth, a fact denounced by me on this blog.

After years of dissatisfaction, 54 percent of the voters rejected the current political relationship with the United States in a November 2012 referendum. Also, the PROMESA Act suspended essential elements of self-governance by allowing the Board to nullify local laws. 

Congress and the people of Puerto Rico need to negotiate a new relationship. Political authority is required to implement an economic development model that transcends the current depression.

In June 11, 2017, a referendum will be held to vote on a petition to become the 51st State, or local sovereignty in the form of free association or independence. The pro-statehood party promoted similar referenda in 1993, 1998 and 2012, manipulating the language on the ballot to help them claim an artificial win. 

Economic dependence and political persecution, such as the COINTELPRO operations, decimated voters’ support for independence. Congress has failed to give statehood supporters more than lip-service. Also, the application of federal taxes to the island could motivate U.S. corporations with substantial amounts of income to relocate from Puerto Rico to foreign jurisdictions, further deepening the Island’s fiscal woes. 

​Enter free association. Since 1986, the U.S. government signed Compacts of Free Association with three Pacific nations. There are two large differences between those compacts and the Puerto Rican situation: first, these Pacific nations were never under the sovereignty of the Federal government. Also, the people of those countries have never been, and neither aspire to become, U.S. citizens.

International law considers free association as a distinct status from ‘integration,’ and ‘independence’. Free association is not a “type of independence’, as wrongfully declared on a 2011 White House report. 

Continued transmission of U.S. citizenship is an essential issue. There are no constitutional obstacles for Puerto Ricans born after free association to continue their century-old citizenship status. Political will is Congress’s sole barometer on this matter. 

Puerto Rico is at a crossroads. The near-impossible fiscal situation, a decade-old recession, and the possibility of a petition for statehood, are key policy challenges. Let’s start a discussion on how to create a mutually beneficial model of free association between the U.S. and Puerto Rico. 

Nieves, a member of the Popular Democratic Party, served in the Puerto Rico Senate from 2013-2017 as the senator for the District of San Juan, and chairman of the Energy and the Banking, Insurance and Telecommunications committees. Currently, Nieves is the managing member of RL Legal & Consulting Services, LLC, based in San Juan.

UK continues to justify illegal removal of Chagossians from their homeland

Update on the British Indian Ocean Territory:Written statement - HCWS260

WS

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Made on: 16 November 2016

Made by: Sir Alan Duncan (The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs )

HCWS260

Update on the British Indian Ocean Territory

My right Honourable Friend, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns), has made the following written Ministerial statement:

On 24 March 2016 the former Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) informed the House that the Government would be carrying out further work on its review of resettlement policy in the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). I would now like to inform Parliament of two decisions which have been made concerning the future of BIOT.

Parliament will be aware of the Government’s review and consultation over the resettlement of the Chagossian people to BIOT. The manner in which the Chagossian community was removed from the Territory in the 1960s and 1970s, and the way they were treated, was wrong and we look back with deep regret. We have taken care in coming to our final decision on resettlement, noting the community’s emotional ties to BIOT and their desire to go back to their former way of life.

This comprehensive programme of work included an independent feasibility study followed by a full public consultation in the UK, Mauritius and the Seychelles.

I am today announcing that the Government has decided against resettlement of the Chagossian people to the British Indian Ocean Territory on the grounds of feasibility, defence and security interests, and cost to the British taxpayer. In coming to this decision the Government has considered carefully the practicalities of setting up a small remote community on low-lying islands and the challenges that any community would face. These are significant, and include the challenge of effectively establishing modern public services, the limited healthcare and education that it would be possible to provide, and the lack of economic opportunities, particularly job prospects. The Government has also considered the interaction of any potential community with the US Naval Support Facility – a vital part of our defence relationship.

The Government will instead seek to support improvements to the livelihoods of Chagossians in the communities where they now live. I can today announce that we have agreed to fund a package of approximately £40 million over the next ten years to achieve this goal. This money addresses the most pressing needs of the community by improving access to health and social care and to improved education and employment opportunities. Moreover, this fund will support a significantly expanded programme of visits to BIOT for native Chagossians. The Government will work closely with Chagossian communities in the UK and overseas to develop cost-effective programmes which will make the biggest improvement in the life chances of those Chagossians who need it most.

Parliament will also be aware that the agreements underpinning the UK/US defence facility will roll over automatically on 31 December if neither side breaks silence. In an increasingly dangerous world, the defence facility is used by us and our allies to combat some of the most difficult problems of the 21st century including terrorism, international criminality, instability and piracy. I can today confirm that the UK continues to welcome the US presence, and that the agreements will continue as they stand until 30 December 2036.

_______________________________

What now for Chagossians?

December 7, 2016

|Tom Guha & Stefan Donnelly

It will come as no surprise  that the UK Chagos Support Association are deeply saddened by the Government’s recent decision against pilot resettlement of the Chagos Islands. The decision came as a shock to us and has paralysed many in the community.

As a group dedicated to supporting the people of the Chagos Islands, we do not speak on their behalf. However we are in regular contact with many in the Chagossian community and those conversations have formed the basis of our position.    

The UK Chagos Support Association do not accept the Government’s decision. We believe it was based on flawed evidence and we will support the Chagossian community however they choose to respond.  

However, we welcome the Government’s new commitment to “improving the lives of the Chagossians in the places where they are now” and we hope we can work constructively with both Government and the Chagossian community to come to a settlement that works for both parties.

With regards the Written Ministerial Statement that announced the decision, while we are pleased that the Government acknowledged that historic treatment of Chagossians was wrong, we believe it should be acknowledged as illegal. The basis of Chagossian exile was a falsehood and should be recognised as such.

It is also misleading to suggest Chagossians wanted to “go back to their former way of life.” The Foreign Office consultation demonstrated Chagossians understood that life on the returned islands would be different from the life they used to lead. There was great enthusiasm for modern industries like eco-tourism, environmental protection and administrative roles within BIOT and the US base.

The enthusiasm found in the consultation was matched by requisite skill found in the KPMG study, which states, “the wide range of employment skills present in the Chagossian community has allowed the team to identify major livelihood options for a resettled community”. This seriously brings into question the Government’s concerns around “job prospects”.

Chagossians are not naive. They are aware of the challenges that return presents. But all these challenges were accounted for in the KPMG study - on which after completion, Ministers accepted return was “practically feasible”

The KPMG study also addressed security and defence concerns - concerns that have never been properly outlined. Almost all US military bases have an attached civilian population and the base on Diego Garcia has a large population of temporary labourers. The statement says that Ministers had “considered the interaction of any potential community with the US Naval Support Facility”, which prompts the question; what are the outcomes of these considerations?

The idea that “costs to the British taxpayer” are a barrier is difficult to accept and frankly insulting. Firstly, many Chagossians are the British taxpayers mentioned. Moreover, the £60m resettlement start-up costs over three years are a tiny proportion of the international aid budget, over which citizens of British Overseas Territories have first call. We would also expect contributions from the US, the EU, the private sector and NGOs.

Recently the Government spent £285m on an airport on St Helena. It is not even fit for purpose. Every year defence of the Falklands costs UK taxpayers upwards of £60m. Why is the Government so opposed to funding a resettlement programme on the Chagos Islands?

We absolutely welcome the Government’s new commitment to make “improvements to the livelihoods of Chagossians in the communities where they now live” and are willing to work with the Government to make this happen. However, we are sceptical of the £40m funding package.

The fund’s stated aim is to “[address] the most pressing needs of the community by improving access to health and social care and to improved education and employment opportunities”. This raises a number of questions: how was the fund calculated? What will it be spent on? How will it reach the community? Who will be eligible to receive it?

We know that the fund will “support a significantly expanded programme of visits to BIOT for native Chagossians”. Visits to BIOT (the Government name for the Chagos Islands) used to take place almost annually - what does a “significantly expanded programme” mean? It is also vital that the criteria of ‘native’ is clarified. If it only means those who were born on the islands then anyone under the age of 40 will be excluded, robbing younger Chagossians of their identity and links to their birthplace.

There are extremely serious problems affecting the Chagossian community that urgently need to be addressed and could be with minimal funding.

Families are routinely torn apart because the Home Office does not recognise Chagossian identity. Many Chagossians have been deported or are in Immigration Removal Centres. Simply trying to keep a family together is an inconceivable challenge to many - costing time and money and removing any chances of social or economic mobility.

If the Government is to do just one thing to improve the lives of Chagossians where they are now, it must be to fix the immigration laws that are literally ripping their community apart. One Chagossian put it very poignantly; “these laws are causing a second exile”.

We do not accept the decision and we will support Chagossians in any campaign they mount against it. However it is also important that we hold the Government to account on their commitment to improving the lives of Chagossians.

It is embarrassing that the Government threw away such a perfect opportunity to right a historical wrong. To address these laws would at least offer them some redemption - but crucially it would offer some hope to a community that has been on history’s losing side for far too long.  

"The Chagos Islanders and International Law"- Book by Stephen Allen

Stephen Allen is a Senior Lecturer in Law at Queen Mary, University of London.

In 1965, the UK excised the Chagos Islands from the colony of Mauritius to create the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) in connection with the founding of a US military facility on the island of Diego Garcia. Consequently, the inhabitants of the Chagos Islands were secretly exiled to Mauritius, where they became chronically impoverished. 

This book considers the resonance of international law for the Chagos Islanders. It advances the argument that BIOT constitutes a 'Non-Self-Governing Territory' pursuant to the provisions of Chapter XI of the UN Charter and for the wider purposes of international law. 

In addition, the book explores the extent to which the right of self-determination, indigenous land rights and a range of obligations contained in applicable human rights treaties could support the Chagossian right to return to BIOT. 

However, the rights of the Chagos Islanders are premised on the assumption that the UK possesses a valid sovereignty claim over BIOT. The evidence suggests that this claim is questionable and it is disputed by Mauritius. Consequently, the Mauritian claim threatens to compromise the entitlements of the Chagos Islanders in respect of BIOT as a matter of international law. 

This book illustrates the ongoing problems arising from international law's endorsement of the territorial integrity of colonial units for the purpose of decolonisation at the expense of the countervailing claims of colonial self-determination by non-European peoples that inhabited the same colonial unit. The book uses the competing claims to the Chagos Islands to demonstrate the need for a more nuanced approach to the resolution of sovereignty disputes resulting from the legacy of European colonialism.

Chagos islanders ‘betrayed’ by UK failure to decide on their return

The Guardian

Supporters of Chagossians’ return to the Indian Ocean atolls condemn the government’s postponement and ‘lack of political courage’

Supporters of the inhabitants of a British overseas territory deported from their homeland are furious that the government has reneged on a promise that it would decide before the election on whether they could return.

Shortly before parliament disbanded, the government said it would delay confirming whether the Chagossian people could go back to the Chagos Islands, a series of atolls in the Indian Ocean. The main island, Diego Garcia, has been leased to the US military since 1966. That agreement expires next year. 

Novelist Philippa Gregory, secretary of the UK Chagos Support Association, branded the delay “another serious betrayal of the Chagossian community”. She added: “Chagossians have suffered in exile for years, and it is disgraceful the government has failed to deliver a small measure of justice by supporting return.” Television presenter and author Ben Fogle will hand a petition to Downing Street after the election urging the next government to let the Chagossians go back.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE IN THE GUARDIAN .

Chagos Islands All-Party Parliamentary Group Meeting

Chagos Islands All-Party Parliamentary Group Meeting: Coordinators Summary 

& Official Statement

The Chagos Islands All-Party Parliamentary Group have  agreed a statement on the prospects of Chagossian resettlement of their homeland. Please find the statement below a brief summary of this evening’s meeting. Thanks as ever to voluntary co-ordinator of the APPG David Snoxell for providing both the summary and the statement.

Coordinator’s Summary of the 48th Meeting of the Chagos Islands All-Party Parliamentary Group

The Chagos Islands APPG held its 48th and final meeting of this Parliament on 23 March. The Group discussed the PQs tabled (not yet answered) and exchanges in the Commons with the Leader of the House and the Prime Minster since the last meeting on 23 February. 

Members noted that  their letter of 24 February to the Prime Minister had not yet been answered and nor had the Government’s anticipated statement to Parliament on the KPMG report been made.

The Group noted the progress that had been achieved since 2008 and agreed a statement on prospects for Chagossian resettlement and the future of the Chagos Islands (below) for release to the media and interested parties. It was decided that the Group would be re-established in the next Parliament and meet in early June.

Statement on 23 March 2015 issued by the Chagos Islands (BIOT) APPG on prospects for Chagossian resettlement and the future of the Chagos Islands.

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 Chagos Islands and of the Chagossian people. Considerable progress has been made towards this aim.

The KPMG report on the feasibility of resettlement, published last month, concluded that there were no legal obstacles to resettlement.

The Group held its 48^th and final meeting of this Parliament on Monday 23 March 2015. In the absence so far of a statement by the Government on the KPMG report members concluded that:

1. 1: Notwithstanding the period of purdah, between the dissolution of Parliament and the general election, the Government should consult and agree with the main political parties a statement on the future of the exiled Chagossian people to be made before the election, setting out the intentions of parties likely to form the next government.

2. 2: The APPG believes that, following the KPMG study, there should be agreement to a pilot resettlement on Diego Garcia, work on which should begin immediately when the next government comes to office, with a view to the first settlers arriving in early 2016.

3. 3: The APPG urges the political parties to seize this opportunity, during the year of the 800^th anniversary of Magna Carta and the 50th anniversary of the creation of the British Indian Ocean Territory, to bring about a fair and just settlement to which Conservatives and Liberal Democrats were committed before the 2010 election, and rectify one of the worst violations of fundamental human rights perpetrated by the United Kingdom in the twentieth century.

4. 4: The APPG considers that any renewal next year of the 1966 UK/US Agreement on the use of BIOT for defence purposes should be conditional on a commitment by both parties to facilitate and support resettlement.

5. 5: The Group welcomes the Arbitral Tribunal’s conclusion of the international arbitration between the UK and Mauritius and its finding that the undertakings given by the UK in 1965 are legally binding in international law. It calls upon the Government to open discussions with Mauritius concerning fishing rights which until the declaration of the MPA were operated by Chagossian owned and operated vessels.

6. 6: In consequence of the above finding which gives Mauritius an “interest in significant decisions that bear upon the possible use of the Archipelago” the APPG urges the Government to consult Mauritius over future arrangements both for the MPA and for the US base on Diego Garcia, and also on plans for the resettlement of Chagossians, in view of the facilities available on Diego Garcia. The Government should also draw on expertise and experience available in Mauritius.

7. 7: The APPG will be re-established after the election and continue to promote its aim of an overall settlement of the issues.

UK Chagos Support Association

Permanent Court of Arbitration rules on Chagos Islands

The Permanent Court of Arbitration has ruled that the UK breached its international obligations in creating a Marine Protected Area around the Chagos Islands in 2010.Guardian correspondent Owen Bowcott  reports that the UK “acted illegally” and suggests the ruling offers “hope of return” to exiled

Chagossians. In the verdict, the court notes that the MPA was created in “haste…dictated by the electoral timetable.” Read our reaction in the below statement.

The court ruled, by a vote of three to two, that it did not have jurisdiction to rule on what amounted a challenge to the UK’s sovereignty over the Chagos Islands. Two judges did though issue a dissenting comment, saying that the UK “showed complete disregard for the territorial integrity of Mauritius”and had used the “language of intimidation.” The full details of the case and the final judgement can be read here.

Chagossians in the UK, Mauritius and The Seychelles were not properly consulted about the creation of the Marine Protected Area. As we stated at the time, the failure to work with all relevant stakeholders, Chagossians included, meant that the decision ultimately lacked moral and legal legitimacy. Diplomatic documents released by Wikileaks later revealed that the creation of the Marine Protected Area was, at least in part, an attempt to prevent Chagossians from returning to their homeland.

Environmentalists, including our Patron Ben Fogle and Greenpeace, who had initially supported the measure condemned the manner of the creation of the Chagos Marine Protected Area when the full facts came to light.

Our Statement

This must draw a line under the failures of the past, and the UK Government must now focus on supporting Chagossians’ right to return to their homeland.

The Marine Protected Area, whatever its intention, does not prevent Chagossian return home. It does not apply to Diego Garcia at all and only starts three miles from land. An artisan fishing industry could then be sustained without significant alteration to the MPA.

More importantly, a Government-commissioned feasibility study has already found that return is entirely feasible in environmental, defence, social and economic terms. Notably it emphaised that Chagossians are deeply passionate about protecting the environment of their homeland and wished to be actively involved in conservation efforts upon their return.

The Government committed to making a decision on Chagossians’ right to return before the 2015 election and time is running out. We urge Parliamentarians to engage fully with all stakeholders to end decades of human rights abuse and remove a terrible stain on the UK’s character. This administration has a unique opportunity to deliver justice for Chagossians by ending over forty years of enforced exile and supporting return.

British Parliamentary Group meets on future of Chagos Islands

44th Meeting of the Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group – Co-ordinator’s Summary

Photo: Gail Johnson

The Chagos Islands (BIOT) All-Party Parliamentary Group held its 44th meeting on 15 October.

As the new Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) Minister for Overseas Territories (OTs), James Duddridge, had felt that he was not yet ready to meet the Group Prof. Charles Sheppard, Chairman of the Chagos Conservation Trust and his colleagues Alistair Gammell and John Turner, who had requested a meeting in July, attended the first part of the meeting.

The Vice Chairman (Henry Smith MP standing in for Jeremy Corbyn MP) welcomed the representatives of the Chagos Conservation Trust (CCT) and looked forward to hearing about its work. The conservation and environmental aspects of resettlement were discussed. Members were pleased to note that while the CCT mandate was to protect the unique environment of the Chagos Islands, CCT was not opposed to resettlement. 

Prof. Sheppard and his colleagues thought that Diego Garcia was well suited and ecologically sensible, given the available facilities and infrastructure there, though this was a decision for politicians. Members drew attention to the benefits of resettlement for conservation and the types of employment that Chagossians could undertake, especially on Diego Garcia. They agreed to keep in touch with CCT.

READ THE FULL REPORT HERE.

Mauritius Lobbies to Regain Control Of Diego Garcia, Site of U.S. Base

w

By Larry Luxner 

Diego Garcia, a remote speck of land in the middle of the Indian Ocean, rarely makes news. But in recent months, the coral atoll has grabbed the attention of online conspiracy theorists who claim the missing Malaysian Airlines jet secretly landed there as part of some clandestine U.S. military operation.

Photo: SRA Sarah E. Shaw / U.S. Air Force

This 1998 aerial view shows the U.S. Naval Station on Diego Garcia, a remote speck of land in the Indian Ocean administered by Great Britain, which signed a 50-year treaty with the United States in 1966 allowing it to build a military outpost there.

The obscure island even got a mention in the latest installment of the Fox TV show “24,” as super-agent Jack Bauer rushes to thwart terrorists who’ve hijacked a group of American drones at the exact time that the U.S. president is trying to convince Britain to extend a treaty allowing the use of drones on its base in Diego Garcia.

As dramatic as these references are, they do hint at the island’s strategic value just as the United States, Great Britain and Mauritius prepare for talks on the future of the Chagos archipelago, which includes Diego Garcia.

At issue: Who, exactly, owns this tiny island 1,000 miles east of Mauritius and 2,900 miles northwest of Australia?

In 1965, three years before Mauritius won independence, Great Britain detached the Chagos archipelago from the rest of its then-colony and created the British Indian Ocean Territory to administer the islands from London. The following year, it signed a 50-year treaty with the United States that allowed Americans to establish a military outpost on Diego Garcia; in return, it secured a discount on U.S. Polaris missiles. In the process, Britain kicked out about 2,000 native Chagossians to make way for the American outpost.

READ FULL TEXT HERE

Chagos Islands - Motion filed in U.K. Parliament to provide for right of return

USSLAVE.BLOGSPOT.COM

CHAGOS ISLANDERS

Session: 2003-04
Date tabled: 15.06.2004
Primary sponsor: Corbyn, Jeremy
Sponsors: 83

That this House recognises the historical injustice of the removal of all the inhabitants from Diego Garcia and the Chagos Islands in order to make way for a US base on Diego Garcia; notes that under the terms of the British Overseas Territories Act 2002, British citizenship was granted to the inhabitants and their right of return was enshrined in the Court Order of 2000; is therefore astonished at the publication of the British Indian Ocean Territory (Legislation) Order 2004 and the British Indian Ocean Territory (Legislation) Order 2004 and the British Indian Ocean Territory (Constitution) Order 2004; and calls for the Government to rescind both.