This is serious: environmental issues are being shamelessly manipulated by vested government and military (UK/US) interests to undermine the entire ethical position of the global environmental movement. See below for links:
Environmental issues are being hijacked under a Chagos Conservation Trust petition to 'save' the Chagos Islands as a world marine heritage. The CCT, a 'conservation group', mysteriously has the full backing of the British Government, and has military officers on its managerial team. The CCT refuses to recognise the indigenous inhabitants who were evicted to live in exile - and is also silent about the islands being used as a bombing runway and secret prison by the US military. This looks suspiciously like a sneaky ploy to dupe the public - with the real aim being to keep the islanders out and the US secret base in. Activists need to write in to the CCT and ask them the embarrassing questions they are trying to avoid.
_______________________________________
This is the first letter I sent to the CCT:
Mr Simon Hughes
Secretary of the Chagos Conservation Trust
29 Champion Hill
London
England
SE5 8AL
0207 738 7712
CC: David Cromwell of Media Lens, and John Pilger, journalist
"Dear Mr Hughes,
"I reference your website:
http://www.chagos-trust.org
"The indigenous inhabitants of the Chagos Islands were forcibly evicted with brute force by the UK government in the 1960s, and have been living in exile and poverty on Mauritius ever since. Undemocratic royal decree has overturned the many court rulings made in their favour about the injustices they suffered. The islands were handed on lease to the US military who currently use the largest island, Diego Garcia, as a base. Your petition and website makes virtually no reference to this heinous crime, and the little that does (a single small bullet on the homepage) is couched in some of the most evasive language I have ever read.
"For example, the CCT blandly states that ‘most of the Chagos is uninhabited’. No reasons as to why this might be the case are offered. The people, in a couple of sentences spaced inbetween eloquent paragraphs on turtles, sharks, marine birds and coral, are referred to as mere itinerants, former slaves, contracted labour, ‘only’ in habitation there for 150-200 years. Essentially it reads that you are trying to tell us they are ‘people without rights’: ‘non-people’ whom we needn’t worry about and who might as well still be slaves for all the recognition they get from the CCT. The ‘inhabited’ part of the islands also receives scant attention – especially when what actually goes on here is in itself an international scandal.
See John Pilger's prize winning documentary on the subject: 'Stealing A Nation' http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3667764379758632511
"Unless 'environmental protection' is to become a cosy guise for imperial oppression, it is absolutely mandatory to state that a Chagos nature reserve must include a resettlement of the indigenous inhabitants back onto their islands. Neither is any genuine care for the environment compatible with an imperial military base, well known for its role in bombing defenceless civilians worldwide in war crimes from Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan - and for its recent use as an incarceration facility for abducted prisoners (illegal under the UN charter of human rights).
"I therefore call on you to unambiguously implement the changes above, and to recognise that environmental protection, human rights and international law are indivisible. These noble values cannot be twisted and perverted by a colonialist expulsion of unwanted dark-skinned people, in cahoots with a criminal military occupation."
_________________________________
I received the following patronising reply from the CCT today:
"I have referred you separately to more information on the Chagossians. As we are conservationists we keep out of politics as much as we can, however you might like to read more and gain a fuller understanding of what actually happened to the Chagossians.
"A few of you have asked us about our position on the pending legal case against the British government brought by some former Chagos islanders.
"We’ve uploaded a note to our new Facebook page with background on this issue, as well as our own position and ways in which we are working with the Chagossian community.
http://www.facebook.com/notes/protect-chagos/what-about-the-people-of-the-chagos/299612496319
"Making the Chagos a Protected Area now will benefit all now, and if in the future circumstances, sovereignty etc change, then whoever has sovereignty can make further changes, but the archipelago will be in better shape."
___________________________________________
My response was as follows:
"I have read this statement and I do not like it. Your organisation is still sidestepping the issue. The language used is a fudge and does not recognise the islanders as legitimate inhabitants (‘pending a court settlement in their favour’, you add – just how many do they need?) For a mere handful of people with no money, they have won many battles in UK courts, only to have these decisions ignored/overruled by the government. The High Court ruling in their favour wasn’t enough either - they had to use an autocratic royal decree to block that one. The islanders you say ‘had to leave’ when the ‘plantations were closed down’, oh yes, and by pressing ‘defence concerns’. That slippery language makes it quite okay sounding, doesn’t it? Natural wastage, failing economy, supply and demand. Until one wonders exactly how the ‘defence of England’ many thousands of miles away is enhanced by leasing the islands as a bomber runway to a superpower so it can dominate the world. The people did not move because ‘the plantations closed down’ either – there was a secret agreement between the 1960s Wilson government and the US military – the people were then evicted by force, their animals gassed, driven into the hold of a container ship and dumped on a quayside in Mauritius.
"I reiterate that protection of the environment, human rights and international law are indivisible. You say that you hope to keep politics and environmentalism ‘separate’. But there are not any state or political party games here on the side of the islanders. It’s a very simple one of justice and human rights. If say the Israeli government allowed you to turn the entire Gaza strip into a people free ‘safari park’ for ‘endangered Levant flora and fauna’, would you be happy with this too? If the CCT is prepared to compromise on this simply to retain gracious favours from the British government and the US military (so they can both engage in criminal activity), then this deals a potentially fatal blow to the environmental cause you are championing, and its worldwide consequences will be resounding."
____________________________________________
Please EVERYONE who reads this article contact Mr Hughes using the addresses or numbers above and express your outrage at green issues being twisted in such a way. Tell him that saving the environment, the ethics of international law, and achieving justice for the islanders are not divisible. They are one in the same. Ask him if his real motive is to use a 'Chagos nature reserve' simply as a means to maintain the criminal expropriation of the islands by the British government and the US military.
_______________________________________
This is the first letter I sent to the CCT:
Mr Simon Hughes
Secretary of the Chagos Conservation Trust
29 Champion Hill
London
England
SE5 8AL
0207 738 7712
CC: David Cromwell of Media Lens, and John Pilger, journalist
"Dear Mr Hughes,
"I reference your website:
http://www.chagos-trust.org "The indigenous inhabitants of the Chagos Islands were forcibly evicted with brute force by the UK government in the 1960s, and have been living in exile and poverty on Mauritius ever since. Undemocratic royal decree has overturned the many court rulings made in their favour about the injustices they suffered. The islands were handed on lease to the US military who currently use the largest island, Diego Garcia, as a base. Your petition and website makes virtually no reference to this heinous crime, and the little that does (a single small bullet on the homepage) is couched in some of the most evasive language I have ever read.
"For example, the CCT blandly states that ‘most of the Chagos is uninhabited’. No reasons as to why this might be the case are offered. The people, in a couple of sentences spaced inbetween eloquent paragraphs on turtles, sharks, marine birds and coral, are referred to as mere itinerants, former slaves, contracted labour, ‘only’ in habitation there for 150-200 years. Essentially it reads that you are trying to tell us they are ‘people without rights’: ‘non-people’ whom we needn’t worry about and who might as well still be slaves for all the recognition they get from the CCT. The ‘inhabited’ part of the islands also receives scant attention – especially when what actually goes on here is in itself an international scandal.
See John Pilger's prize winning documentary on the subject: 'Stealing A Nation'
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3667764379758632511 "Unless 'environmental protection' is to become a cosy guise for imperial oppression, it is absolutely mandatory to state that a Chagos nature reserve must include a resettlement of the indigenous inhabitants back onto their islands. Neither is any genuine care for the environment compatible with an imperial military base, well known for its role in bombing defenceless civilians worldwide in war crimes from Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan - and for its recent use as an incarceration facility for abducted prisoners (illegal under the UN charter of human rights).
"I therefore call on you to unambiguously implement the changes above, and to recognise that environmental protection, human rights and international law are indivisible. These noble values cannot be twisted and perverted by a colonialist expulsion of unwanted dark-skinned people, in cahoots with a criminal military occupation."
_________________________________
I received the following patronising reply from the CCT today:
"I have referred you separately to more information on the Chagossians. As we are conservationists we keep out of politics as much as we can, however you might like to read more and gain a fuller understanding of what actually happened to the Chagossians.
"A few of you have asked us about our position on the pending legal case against the British government brought by some former Chagos islanders.
"We’ve uploaded a note to our new Facebook page with background on this issue, as well as our own position and ways in which we are working with the Chagossian community.
http://www.facebook.com/notes/protect-chagos/what-about-the-people-of-the-chagos/299612496319 "Making the Chagos a Protected Area now will benefit all now, and if in the future circumstances, sovereignty etc change, then whoever has sovereignty can make further changes, but the archipelago will be in better shape."
___________________________________________
My response was as follows:
"I have read this statement and I do not like it. Your organisation is still sidestepping the issue. The language used is a fudge and does not recognise the islanders as legitimate inhabitants (‘pending a court settlement in their favour’, you add – just how many do they need?) For a mere handful of people with no money, they have won many battles in UK courts, only to have these decisions ignored/overruled by the government. The High Court ruling in their favour wasn’t enough either - they had to use an autocratic royal decree to block that one. The islanders you say ‘had to leave’ when the ‘plantations were closed down’, oh yes, and by pressing ‘defence concerns’. That slippery language makes it quite okay sounding, doesn’t it? Natural wastage, failing economy, supply and demand. Until one wonders exactly how the ‘defence of England’ many thousands of miles away is enhanced by leasing the islands as a bomber runway to a superpower so it can dominate the world. The people did not move because ‘the plantations closed down’ either – there was a secret agreement between the 1960s Wilson government and the US military – the people were then evicted by force, their animals gassed, driven into the hold of a container ship and dumped on a quayside in Mauritius.
"I reiterate that protection of the environment, human rights and international law are indivisible. You say that you hope to keep politics and environmentalism ‘separate’. But there are not any state or political party games here on the side of the islanders. It’s a very simple one of justice and human rights. If say the Israeli government allowed you to turn the entire Gaza strip into a people free ‘safari park’ for ‘endangered Levant flora and fauna’, would you be happy with this too? If the CCT is prepared to compromise on this simply to retain gracious favours from the British government and the US military (so they can both engage in criminal activity), then this deals a potentially fatal blow to the environmental cause you are championing, and its worldwide consequences will be resounding."
____________________________________________
Please EVERYONE who reads this article contact Mr Hughes using the addresses or numbers above and express your outrage at green issues being twisted in such a way. Tell him that saving the environment, the ethics of international law, and achieving justice for the islanders are not divisible. They are one in the same. Ask him if his real motive is to use a 'Chagos nature reserve' simply as a means to maintain the criminal expropriation of the islands by the British government and the US military.
Comments
Hide the following 4 comments
Addition: Email address for CCT Secretary Simon Hughes
02.02.2010 09:11
MaskOfAnarchy
Inaccurate, oversimplified and unlikely to aid the Chagos Islanders
02.02.2010 14:22
In fact the CCT is not new (formed in 1992) and the present campaign to make the waters around the chagos islands a marine reserve is jointly supported by the The Marine Conservation Society; Pew Environment Group; The Linnean Society of London; The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; The Royal Society; The Zoological Society of London. There is no evidence yet of government backing for this campaign. While a public consultation has been announced which will be ending imminently this is not necessarily a sign of support. Pubic consultations are often a way for the government to fudge an issue and placate NGOs etc.
The seas around the chagos islands (200 miles in all directions from the islands!) are officially under UK state jurisdiction and are the most bio-diverse marine eco-system under direct UK state control by a very long way. There is a big push in the conservation world at the moment to develop marine reserves - including in UK waters - so it is no surprise that this campaign is underway. It of course may be getting support from some nefarious establishment figures (as conservation often does) but this is no reason to presume the whole thing is a charade.
It may be partially in the interests of the state to declare this reserve - it would satisfy some of its signed commitments to biodiversity with maybe (I don't know) minimal economic cost. It maybe even sees some greenwash advantage re the forcefully evicted chagos islanders. On the other hand it might not support it at all for economic and military reasons I don’t know. Even more likely some relevant factions within the state may support it while others are against while most don't care. (For an example closer to home of this kind of internal conflict you could look into the 50+ year’s process of creating Britain’s newest national park in the South Downs.)
Arguably if the reserve was put in place it would make the military use of the islands look even more incongruous and could therefore be used by those evicted from the Chagos as another stick to beat the UK government. Alternatively it could be successfully used by the UK government as propaganda. The extent to which either of these possibilities takes place (if infact the reserve even gets declared) will depend on how much groups here mobilise in support of the chagos struggle.
The CCT are not going to take a position which is directly adversarial to UK state control of the chagos as this would doom the campaign from the start. This does not mean they are not genuine in wanting to protect the marine ecology there. Beyond human interests I doubt very much that the fish, coral or turtles in question have a well developed analysis of the political situation but I’m guessing they’d rather not be caught up in an industrial fishing vessels nets. Any marine reserve for them would likely be a big plus!
Given the contradictions in this situation - for those of us who are both anarchists and deeply motivated to protect biodiversity – I would not personally recommend getting behind the campaign FOR the reserve. There are plenty of eco-systems under threat where the lines are for us rather more nicely arranged – mining companies and states vs. conservationists and anarchic indigenous people etc. Many of these directly involve UK interests. It would seem sensible to engage in these situations and only when they are won - and some of them are winnable - turn to those with more overt contradictions. For this reason I would also argue a campaign to change the policies of CCT is not a good focus.
Finally there is no evidence (at least that I can find –I may be wrong) that the CCT campaign is opposed by Chagos islanders themselves. According to the main UK support website (
The Chagos islanders deserve far more solidarity that they have got but I don’t think putting pressure on CCT is the way to go about it. Make up your own mind!
An anonymous anarchist ecologist
Stopping Marine reserve will only help big business
02.02.2010 19:22
The only people who will benefit from opposing the Marine Reserve is big fishing interests and Marine Resources Assessment Group (MRAG) who are paid nearly £2million to patrol the islands have afternoon tea with yachties and prevent the islanders returning. I've heard that MRAG are paying for false flag operations to ensure that the marine reserve fails so they can continue their gravy train.
Chagos
A comment on both positions taken here re: the Chagos islands
03.02.2010 09:43
I agree with the ecological anarchist that the region has huge potential as a reserve and there are many different scenarios which could arise out of such a marine reserve, not all detrimental to the islanders. However, that said, one needs to keep up the pressure so that the scenario which we would prefer is the one that triumphs. No doubt many in the CCT are probably quite progressive people, but it's worrying that they have all agreed to play under the government's 'rules of language'. This last phrase here is crucial, as anyone who has read Chomsky etc will know. And knowing so well how the establishment works in this country, the layers of shameless spin they hide under, and no matter how well intentioned they are they all agree to 'I'll nod the wink for you if you do the same for me', I think we have a case for deep suspicion.
There are two basic ways of approaching social and environmental issues. One is that you pretend to play the establishment at its own game and (hopefully) create the changes you want under their noses and in their court. If it works, that's great but you're always aware that if discovered, or when - you'll be trapped in terrain of the enemy's choosing. The other one is the up front oppositional approach (or the Malalai Joya approach - as I call it - after the incredibly brave Afghan women's rights activist), is to aim for the jugular, cut straight through the crap and denounce bullshit as bullshit. Both have strengths and weaknesses, but the first approach potentially forces you into compromises along the way (for the greater good of course) until you are left with nothing.
carachinus longimanus