|
EXCERPT:
"Unfortunately," he wrote, "along with the Birds go some few Tarzans or
Men Fridays whose origins are obscure, and who are being hopefully
wished on to Mauritius etc. When this has been done, I agree we must be
very tough."
...The
government is considering an appeal, knowing that the Americans, having
attacked Iraq and Afghanistan from Diego Garcia, are furious. The
bombing of Iran is planned to take place from this British territory.
Both governments apparently still believe they can "wear down" the
islanders' resolve. They are mistaken, I can assure them.
Another
ignominious story of terrorism, dispossession and lies in the history
of US-British relations. JL
Out of Eden
The Indian Ocean paradise of Diego Garcia was once home to more
than a thousand contented British subjects. In 1966, Harold
Wilson's government sold it to the US in a secret, illegal deal
and terrorised the population into leaving. John Pilger reports
on the islanders' long battle for justice.
John Pilger
Monday
May 29, 2006
Guardian
In
long-forgotten archives in London and Mauritius is rare film of a
community of contented people. The grainy, flickering images, full of
movement of children playing on sandy beaches, and proud young women
presenting their newborn for christening, and men setting out to fish,
their dogs swimming alongside, are glimpses of a true paradise. There
are thriving villages, a school, a hospital, a church, a light railway,
set in a phenomenon of natural beauty: strings of coral atolls,
floating in the turquoise of the Indian Ocean.
These were
some of the 2,000 people who once lived on the Chagos archipelago, the
majority on Diego Garcia, an atoll the shape of a tiny Italy, 14 miles
long and six miles wide. Their ancestry went back to the 18th century,
when the French brought slaves from Mozambique and Madagascar to work a
coconut plantation. After Napoleon's defeat in 1815, the islands passed
from French to British rule; about 20 years later, slavery was
abolished.
Chagossian
society continued to grow with the arrival of indentured labourers from
India in the mid-19th century. By the 20th century they had developed a
distinct language that was a lilting variation of French Creole. There
were now three copra factories, supplying the coconut oil that lit
street lamps in London, and a coaling station for ships en route to and
from Australia; by the 1960s, there were plans for tourism. The workers
received a small wage or payment in kind with commodities such as rice,
oil and milk. They supplemented this by fishing in the abundantly
stocked coastal waters, growing tomatoes, chilli, pumpkins and
aubergines, and rearing chicken and ducks. As if celebrating a perfect
vision of empire in such a place, a Colonial Office film from the 1950s
describes the population as "born and brought up ... in conditions most
tranquil and benign". The camera pans across a laughing woman hanging
out clothes to dry in a coconut grove while her children play around
her. This is Charlesia Alexis.
I met
Charlesia recently, 50 years after she was filmed. She was sitting in
the shade of her small, sparsely furnished house on the edge of Port
Louis, the capital of Mauritius, more than 1,000 miles from her home. I
asked her for her fondest memories of Diego Garcia. "Oh, everything!"
she replied. "The sense of wellbeing is my fondest souvenir. My family
could eat and drink what they liked; we never lacked for anything; we
never bought anything, except clothes. Can you imagine that?"
"Why did you leave?"
"I left in
1967. My husband was very ill and I decided to take him to Port Louis
to get the special treatment he needed. When we were ready to return,
we went to Rogers & Company [they ran the boats] and asked for our
tickets. They said they had instructions not to let us go back. They
said Diego had been sold."
"Sold?"
"Yes, that's
what they said. We were tricked. Looking back, the day before we left,
the administrator told us to take a lot of fruit with us. They tricked
us in so many ways, and when this game had run its course, they
deported everyone, just like that. I was the fourth generation. Diego
was my bird in the sky that was taken from me. I was sent to live in a
slum, in rooms previously inhabited by goats and pigs. That's how they
saw us."
What happened
in the Chagos Islands was so searing, it may seem barely credible.
Indeed La Lutte, as the Chagossians call their struggle for justice and
freedom, arose from a crime that allows us to glimpse how great power
works behind its respectable, democratic facade and how governments
justify their actions with lies.
During the
1960s and 1970s, British governments, both Labour and Tory, tricked and
expelled the entire population of the Chagos, a British colonial
dependency, so that their homeland could be given to a foreign power,
the United States, as the site for a military base. This "act of mass
kidnapping", as one observer describes it, was carried out in high
secrecy, along with the conspiracy that preceded it. For almost a
decade, neither parliament nor the US Congress knew anything about it,
and no journalist revealed it. BBC newsreaders still refer to US
aircraft flying out to bomb Afghanistan and Iraq from the "uninhabited"
island of Diego Garcia. Not only was the Chagossians' homeland stolen
from them, but they were taken out of history. This scandal is
unresolved today - even though the high court in London has twice ruled
that the islanders' "wholesale removal" was an "abject legal failure".
The year was
1961. Two men strode up the jetty on Diego Garcia, filmed by
missionaries unaware of the significance of their visitors. One was
Rear Admiral Grantham of the US Navy, the leader of an American advance
survey team whose objective was to find an island suitable for a
military base that would allow Washington to dominate the Indian Ocean
and beyond. For the next three years, British and American planners and
engineers inspected the Chagos group. Finally, they selected the nearby
island of Aldabra.
Their secret
decision leaked out to the scientists of the Royal Society in London,
who were horrified. Together with the Smithsonian Institution in
Washington, this formidable establishment body mounted a campaign that
saw off the Ministry of Defence and Admiral Grantham. The island's
precious wildlife, including the giant land tortoise and the last
flightless bird, were safe. The second choice, however, was not. This
was Diego Garcia which, although rich in terrestrial and marine life,
was not unique enough to excite the collective indignation of
naturalists.
As for the
presence of a flourishing human population, this was "not an
insurmountable problem", advised the Foreign Office, for people could
be "removed" and "the outside world [presented] with a scenario in
which there were no permanent inhabitants on the archipelago".
In February
1964, a secret Anglo-American conference was held in London, at which
the final decision was taken. Again, parliament was not informed. The
following April, Anthony Greenwood, the colonial secretary in Harold
Wilson's Labour government, flew to Mauritius, then a British colony
that included the Chagos Islands. Greenwood spelled out the terms for
granting independence to Mauritius. Despite United Nations Resolution
1514, which held that all colonial peoples had an inalienable right to
independence without conditions, Greenwood offered it with strings.
Mauritius could be free as long as Britain could keep the Chagos
archipelago. The bribe was a mere £3m, together with a promise to
support Mauritian sugar preferences.
Thus
Charlesia's homeland was "sold". On November 8 1965, in the twilight of
its colonial era, Britain created a new colony, the British Indian
Ocean Territory (BIOT), whose principal territory was the Chagos
Islands. It was a ruse of which perhaps only Britain's ancien
régime
was capable; for the new colony was a fake, an entity created for the
sole purpose of handing it over for the use of the American military.
This was made possible by using the archaic powers of the royal
prerogative, a throwback to the divine right of kings.
Although
barely reported in the press, word of this manoeuvre reached the United
Nations in New York, spurring the General Assembly to pass Resolution
2066, which called on the British government "to take no action which
would dismember the territory of Mauritius and violate its territorial
integrity". This was ignored.
In December
1966, Lord Chalfont, a Foreign Office minister, signed a contract in
Washington giving the Pentagon a 50-year "lease" on Diego Garcia with
an automatic extension of 20 years. Declassified state department
documents obtained under the US Freedom of Information Act in 2005
reveal that Washington wanted the entire population expelled; as one
official put it, the islands were to be "swept" and "sanitised". This
was described in a secret file as "a neat, sensible package".
In
1974,a joint UK-US question-and-answer "official truth" primer for
embassies around the world asked: "Is there a native population on the
Chagos Islands?" The reply was "No." A Ministry of Defence spokesman
denied this was a lie, in the process uttering perhaps the most amazing
lie of all. "There is nothing in our files," he said, "about
inhabitants or about an evacuation." It was not until 1975 that the US
Senate revealed that the British government had been secretly
"compensated" for the Chagos with a discount of $14m off the price of a
Polaris nuclear submarine. This itself was illegal, as it was never
submitted to Congress for approval; and the document Chalfont signed
stated falsely that the US would pay no rent for acquiring "base
rights". There was no mention of a population.
Lizette
Talate
is also in the Colonial Office film. She was 14 years old at the time
and remembers the producer saying to her and her friends, "Keep
smiling, girls!" Sitting in her kitchen in Port Louis, she says, "We
didn't need to be told. I was a happy child, because my roots were deep
in Diego. My great-grandmother was born on Diego, and my grandmother
was born there, and my mother was born there, and I was born there. I
made six children there. Maybe only the English can make a film that
showed we were an established community, then deny their own evidence
and invent the lie that we were transient workers. That's why they
couldn't legally throw us out of our own homes; they had to terrify us
into leaving or force us out."
"How did
they terrify you?" I asked.
"They
tried to
starve us. The food ships stopped arriving, and everything was scarce.
There was no milk, no dairy products, no oil, no sugar, no salt. When
they couldn't starve us out of our homes, they spread rumours that we
would be bombed, then they turned on our dogs."
The
Chagossians love their dogs; they are inseparable. The plan to kill all
the dogs on the island - with its unsubtle implication that humans
might be next - came from Sir Bruce Greatbatch, then Her Majesty's
Governor of the Seychelles.
"At
first they
tried poisoned fish balls," said Lizette. "That killed a few and left
many in terrible agony. Then they paid a man to walk round with a big
stick beating them to death, or trying to. Finally, American soldiers,
who had already begun to arrive, gassed them, and the bodies - many
still alive - were thrown on to a shelf that usually held the flesh of
coconuts as it was cooked ... children listened to the howls of their
pets being burned to death."
Along
with 180
others, Lizette and her family were forced on to the vessel Nordvaer,
which had plied between the Chagos and Mauritius and the Seychelles,
transporting copra and taking supplies back to the islands. The men
were herded on to the bridge and had to stand or crouch in very rough
weather; the women and children were made to sleep in the hold on a
cargo of fertiliser - bird shit. People vomited and suffered diarrhoea;
two women miscarried.
"Even
water
was scarce," says Lizette. "What I can't forget is the fear and
uncertainty for myself and my family. When we got to the Seychelles,
the police were waiting for us. They marched us up the hill to a
prison, where we were kept in cells until the boat was ready to take us
on to Mauritius.
"I
suppose we
took some hope in the promise that in Mauritius we would be granted a
house, a piece of land, animals and a sum of money. We got nothing."
The
former
president of Mauritius, Cassam Uteem, who has championed the
Chagossians' rights, told me: "You can't imagine how bewildered and
terrified they were ... These were a people who would sing their way
through life; and here they were, weeping their way through life, and
they are still weeping.
"I know
of one
lady who lost two children within two or three months, and she wasn't
able even to perform their funerals because she didn't have any money.
The children were taken from the hospital straight to the cemetery.
That lady is still weeping."
Lizette
is
that lady. She lost Jollice, aged eight, and Regis, aged 10 months. Her
husband died soon afterwards. "They died of sadness," she tells me. "It
is true, because the doctor said he could not treat sadness. Lizette is
a wiry, formidably intelligent woman who wears a mask of grief and
determination. "I am going home," she says. "I am not to be pitied; I
am fighting."
By
1975, the Chagossians in exile began to die from their imposed poverty.
Most were unemployed and penniless and either sharing a slum or
sleeping rough. In a letter to an MP, a Foreign Office official wrote:
"Although we have no information about deaths, some deaths are bound to
have occurred in the normal course of events."
That was
a
lie. The Foreign Office had sent a senior official, ARG Prosser, to
investigate; he had sent back a graphically detailed report on the
islanders' living conditions and advised that "something needs to be
done".
The
government's response was to offer a minuscule £650,000 in
compensation
to the entire population. Even this did not arrive until 1978, five
years after the last islander had been deported.
In 1981,
several hundred Chagossian women converged on the British High
Commission in Port Louis, sat down and sang, and demanded proper
compensation. Thanks to their protest, it appeared that progress was
being made on compensation. On March 27 1982, a group of the most
impoverished islanders accepted a "full and final" settlement of
£4m -
less than half the estimated minimum that they could survive on. But on
what the islanders wanted most - the right to return - there was a
deafening silence.
In the
1990s,
the islanders' struggle took a dramatic turn when a treasure trove of
declassified official documents was discovered in the National Archives
at Kew, in London. This provided the narrative of a conspiracy between
two governments to carry out, in the words of Article 7 of the statute
of the international criminal court, the "deportation or forcible
transfer of a population ... a crime against humanity".
On July
28
1965, a senior Foreign Office official, TCD Jerrom, wrote to the
British representative at the United Nations, FDW Brown, instructing
him to lie to the general assembly that the Chagos Islands were
"uninhabited when the United Kingdom government first acquired them".
This Brown did on November 16 1965. He also misrepresented the
population as "labourers from Mauritius and the Seychelles" for whom
Britain's obligations under the United Nations Charter "did not apply",
and he lied that the "new administrative arrangements" had been "freely
worked out with the ... elected representatives of the people
concerned".
In a
secret
memorandum, a Colonial Office official, KWS MacKenzie, spelt out the
truth. "One of the things we would like to do in the new Territory," he
wrote, "is to convert all the existing residents into short-term,
temporary residents by giving them temporary immigration permits,
describing them as inhabitants of Mauritius or the Seychelles."
Reading
the
files, it is clear that the British government did as it was told by
Washington. Mass deportation, wrote a Foreign Office official, "was
made virtually a condition of the agreement [with the Americans] when
we negotiated it in 1965".
What
these files also reveal is an imperious attitude of brutality and
contempt. On August 24 1966, Sir Paul Gore-Booth, permanent
under-secretary at the Foreign Office, wrote: "We must surely be very
tough about this. The object of the exercise is to get some rocks which
will remain ours. There will be no indigenous population except
seagulls."
At the
bottom
of the page is a postscript handwritten by DA Greenhill, another senior
official, who became Baron Greenhill of Harrow.
"Unfortunately,"
he wrote, "along with the Birds go some few Tarzans or Men Fridays
whose origins are obscure, and who are being hopefully wished on to
Mauritius etc. When this has been done, I agree we must be very tough."
The
cover-up
went to the very top. On November 5 and 8 1965, the Colonial Secretary,
Anthony Greenwood, wrote two secret minutes to Prime Minister Harold
Wilson, in which he described the problem of a "population of 1,000
inhabitants" living in the Chagos. He urged that the Queen quickly
approve the "order-in-council detaching the islands" so that the new
colony could be declared and "we should be able to present the UN with
a fait accompli".
So when
Wilson
gave the green light to the order-in-council, he was aware he was
overriding the legal and human rights of British citizens. He was
stealing their country and ignoring the risks of "dumping unemployables
in heavily over-populated Mauritius", as one honest Foreign Office
official warned, not to mention the incalculable suffering this
ensured.
Foreign
Secretary Michael Stewart, a quiet, grey-haired, grandfatherly-looking
man, took charge of the deceit. Writing secretly to Wilson on July 25
1968, he proposed that the government lie to the world that there was
"no indigenous population", even though he had signed a memorandum
circulating in the cabinet which admitted that "there was an indigenous
population and the Foreign Office knew it".
On April
26
1969, Wilson's private secretary wrote to Stewart that the prime
minister approved the "plan". Seven successive British governments have
- to recall the memorable expression of a Foreign Office legal adviser
in 1969 - maintained the fiction.
In his
two
autobiographies, Denis Healey, who was defence secretary in the Wilson
government and responsible for turning Diego Garcia over to the
Pentagon, makes not a single mention of the expulsion of the
population. In 2004, I asked Healey for an interview. He replied, "I
fear I have no memories of the Chagos archipelago. Sorry."
On May 6
1969,
Healey's private secretary wrote to Downing Street, confirming that the
Defence Secretary had read Stewart's plan and "agrees with its
recommendations". Healey even queried the cost of expelling the
population and sought an assurance that any "excess" above £10m
would
not be borne by his department.
The
"policy of
concealment" (as a Foreign Office file called it) ran almost to the end
of the century - until the files at Kew were cracked open. Armed with
this extraordinary evidence, Richard Gifford, the tireless lawyer
representing the islanders, headed for the courts. In October 2000,
Lizette Talate, Charlesia Alexis and others, led by a courageous
islander, Olivier Bancoult, flew to London to give evidence in a high
court action that challenged the legality of their dispossession.
The
government had feared this, and, prior to the hearing, the Foreign
Office mounted a disinformation campaign, led by Peter Hain. "The outer
islands," Hain told the House of Commons, "have been uninhabited for 30
years, so any resettlement would present serious problems, both because
of the practical feasibility and in relation to our treaty
obligations."
A
"treaty" implied an agreement scrutinised by parliament. There was no
treaty: only a secret, criminal deal. On November 3 2000, in the high
court, Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Gibbs stunned the government.
Citing
the Magna Carta, which proscribed "Exile from the Realm" without due
process, they unanimously squashed the 1965 ordinance used to deport
the islanders as unlawful.
Lizette
and
Charlesia at last could go home, it seemed. But the Blair government
had other ideas. That afternoon, the Foreign Office published a new
immigration ordinance that banned the islanders from returning to Diego
Garcia. Once again, "treaty obligations" with Washington were cited.
In 2003,
the
islanders were back in the high court, now seeking compensation. But
this time they faced a judge who described the case as "unmeritorious"
and "hopeless", and awarded the islanders not a penny - a decision
"welcomed" by Bill Rammell, the Foreign Office minister responsible for
the Chagos.
The
following
year, Rammell employed the same sleight of hand that the Wilson
government had used to expel the islanders in the 1960s, when he sent
an order-in-council to the Queen for her rubber-stamped approval. This
overturned the Chagossians' high court victory of 2000 in its entirety
and and banned the islanders from ever returning home. The
order-in-council appeared on a list of innocuous royal decrees, between
an amendment to the royal charter of the College of Optometrists and
the appointment of Her Majesty's education inspectors for Scotland. No
reason was given; a privy councillor simply read out the fate of
thousands of Her Majesty's most vulnerable, abused and wronged
subjects.
Richard
Gifford and the islanders refused to accept this and were back in the
high court last year. On May 11, two judges found unreservedly in their
favour, describing the government's behaviour as illegal, repugnant and
irrational. The government is considering an appeal, knowing that the
Americans, having attacked Iraq and Afghanistan from Diego Garcia, are
furious. The bombing of Iran is planned to take place from this British
territory. Both governments apparently still believe they can "wear
down" the islanders' resolve. They are mistaken, I can assure them.
·
This
is an edited extract from Freedom Next Time, by John Pilger, published
by Bantam Press on June 5. © John Pilger 2006. To order a copy for
£16.99 (rrp £17.99) with free UK p&p go to guardian.co.uk/bookshop
or call 0870 836 0875.
Guardian
Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
Jennifer Loewenstein
amadea311@earthlink.net
Stay up to date: Write to have your name added to the mailing list.
Have you asked yourself how is it possible that you, a well
informed and educated citizen, can be ignorant of what is being done in
your name, with your money? Why have you never read anything by these
journalists and commentators in the newspapers and magazines you read?
Why have you not heard about this on your radio or TV?
|
|