: : : : : : : : : :

Who knew? Not I.

In the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, the British and the US displaced a whole island population just so that the US could build an American military base. These indigenous people, Chagossians, lived on the island of Diego Garcia. There were about 2000 residents and they were British citizens. They were tricked into giving up their island and the British lied to the UN claiming that the residents of Diego Garcia were “temporary workers”.

They started out by gathering all the pet dogs and cats and then gassing these pets. Next, the residents were placed on a ship and sent to live on the island of Mauritius which is part of the Mascarene Islands. There they live in abject poverty, hidden from the tourists that visit these islands.

After thirty years of protesting and working within the law, the Chagossians were finally granted the right to return by the High Court of Justice in London. The British managed to block their return.

From Wikipedia (excerpt)…

Despite the court judgement recognising the Chagossians’ rights, the islands were uninhabited and there were no civilian transportation links. Most of the Chagossians remained in impoverished conditions, unable to facilitate their own return. Promises of the British Government to assist in resettlement failed to materialise.

On October 9, 2003, in a controversial judgement, Justice Ousley of the High Court decreed that the Chagossians had no right to any compensation from the British Government. Then, in June 2004, the British Government effectively overruled the 2000 court decision in favour of the Chagossians by an order-in-council. The Chagossians and their advocates appealed this move to the High Court of England and Wales and the European Court of Human Rights.

When you get the opportunity, watch this film, it lasts approximately 56 minutes and can be downloaded.

Stealing a nation.

Update since the making of the documentary:

(Excerpt from Wikipedia)

In early April 2006, a group of around 100 Chagossians were permitted to visit the British Indian Ocean Territory for the first time in over 30 years in a trip. The trip was organised and financed by the British Foreign Office and the government of Mauritius. [1]

On May 11, 2006, the Chagossians won their case before the High Court, which ruled that they are entitled to return to the Chagos Archipelago. It remains to be seen whether when or how the judgement might be implemented in practice.[2] The UK government launched an appeal at the Court of Appeal against the May 11 ruling in June 2006. The Foreign office has put forward an argument based on the treatment of the Japanese Canadians following the attacks on Pearl Harbour. [3]

On May 23, 2007, the Court of Appeal dismissed the UK Government’s appeal saying that the methods used to stop the Chagos families to return to the islands were “unlawful” and “an abuse of power”.[4] The Government was refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords, but have stated an intention to appeal to the Lords against that refusal. The Government launched an appeal to the Law Lords in November 2007.

The American lease on Diego Garcia is due to expire in 2016.

From Cooperative Research

May 23, 2007

The British Royal Court of Appeal rules that the Chagossians were tricked, starved, and even terrorized from their homes by the British government 30 years ago (see July 27, 1971-May 26, 1973), and can return to their homes immediately. The islanders had previously won a ruling in 2006, however foreign secretary Margaret Beckett had appealed that ruling (see May 11, 2006). Explaining the court’s decision, Lord Justice Sedley says that “while a natural or man-made disaster could warrant the temporary, perhaps even indefinite, removal of a population for its own safety and so rank as an act of governance, the permanent exclusion of an entire population from its homeland for reasons unconnected with their collective well-being cannot have that character and accordingly cannot be lawfully accomplished by use of the prerogative power of governance.” The British Foreign Office says it is “disappointed” with the decision and says it may file an appeal with the House of Lords. [Guardian, 5/23/2007]

This is shameful.