Depopulation of Diego Garcia

The Diego Garcia depopulation controversy pertains to the expulsion of the indigenous inhabitants of the island of Diego Garcia and the other islands of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) by the United Kingdom, beginning in 1968 and concluding on 27 April 1973 with the evacuation of Peros Banhos atoll.^[1] These people, known at the time as the Ilois; are today known as Chagos Islanders or Chagossians.

Some Chagossians and human rights advocates have claimed that the Chagossian right of occupation was violated by the British Foreign Office as a result of the 1966 agreement^[2] between the British and American governments to provide an unpopulated island for a U.S. military base, and that additional compensation^[3] and a right of return^[4] be provided.

Legal action to claim compensation and the right of abode in the Chagos began in April 1973 when 280 islanders, represented by a Mauritian attorney, petitioned the government of Mauritius to distribute the £650,000 compensation provided in 1972 by the British government for distribution by the Mauritian government (it was not distributed until 1977).^[5] In October 1974, after receiving no assistance from the Mauritian Government, a Mr. Saminaden and Mr. Michel Vincatassin presented the British High Commissioner to Mauritius with a petition detailing the lack of support the islanders had received from the Mauritian government, noting that 40 islanders had died since arriving on Mauritius, and asking for the UK Government to work on their behalf with the Mauritian Government, or to return the Ilois to the Chagos.^[6]

From this initial petitioning grew a series of presentations and lawsuits culminating in the 27 March 1982 agreement among the British Government, the Mauritian Government, and the Islanders (numbering 1,419 adults and 160 minors),^[7] which was intended to settle all islander claims for the sum of £4 millions in cash from the British Government and £1 million in land from the Mauritius Government.^[8]

Beginning in 1983, a new series of compensation claims were made against the British Government by an Ilois group called the Chagos Refugee Group, located on Mauritius. The founders and officers formed the core of inhabitants who, beginning in 1999, brought three lawsuits to British Courts - in 1999,^[9] 2002,^[10] and 2006^[4] - and one to an American Court in 2001,^[11] all requesting additional compensation and the right of abode in the Chagos. The U.S. case and two of these three British cases were defeated on appeal, the other was not appealed^[9] by the British Government.

In 2005, these same litigants filed a brief with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which was brought before that court in 2008 following the final defeat of the final British lawsuit before the House of Lords, and that case remains in litigation as of August 2010.

The British government has consistently denied any illegalities in the expulsion. Even so, various officials (including the Foreign Minister) have apologised to the Chagossians for long-ago wrongdoing,^[12] while still disputing that the deportees have a right to be repatriated at this time. On April 1, 2010, the British Cabinet announced the creation of the world’s largest Marine Protected Area (MPA) which consists of most of the Chagos Archipelago, homeland of the Chagossians.^[13] The MPA will prohibit extractive industry of all kinds, including commercial fishing and oil and gas exploration. Some Chagossians have claimed that this MPA was created to prevent the islanders from returning to the islands.^[14][15][16] The UK Government claims that the restrictions of the MPA will be modified pending the decision of the ECHR.^[17]

On December 1, 2010, a leaked US Embassy London diplomatic cable ^[18] exposed British and US intentions in creating the marine nature reserve. The cable relays exchanges between US Political Counselor Richard Mills and British Director of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Colin Roberts, in which Roberts "asserted that establishing a marine park would, in effect, put paid to resettlement claims of the archipelago’s former residents." Richard Mills concludes:

Establishing a marine reserve might, indeed, as the FCO’s Roberts stated, be the most effective long-term way to prevent any of the Chagos Islands’ former inhabitants or their descendants from resettling in the [British Indian Ocean Territory].

The cable (reference ID "09LONDON1156") was classified as confidential and "no foreigners", and leaked as part of the Cablegate cache.

The Chagossians

A photo of the famed Chagossian named Samson, who could husk his weekly quota of 3,000 coconuts in three days. NOAA Photo from 1968.

The Chagos Archipelago was uninhabited when first visited by European explorers, and remained that way until the French successfully established a small colony on the island of Diego Garcia, composed of 50-60 “men” and “a complement of slaves”. The slaves came from what are now Mozambique and Madagascar via Mauritius.^[19] Thus the original Chagossians were a mixture of the Bantu and Austronesian peoples.

The French surrendered Mauritius and its dependencies (including the Chagos) to the UK in the 1814 Treaty of Paris, and the British immediately outlawed the slave trade. However, nothing precluded the transport of slaves within the colony, and so the ancestors of the Chagossians were routinely shipped from Mauritius to Rodrigues to the Chagos to the Seychelles, and elsewhere.^[20] In addition, from 1820-1840 the atoll of Diego Garcia in the Chagos became the staging post for slave ships trading between Sumatra, the Seychelles, and the French island of Bourbon, adding a population of Malay slaves into the Chagos gene pool.^[20]

The British Government abolished slavery in 1834, and the Colonial administration of the Seychelles (which administered the Chagos at the time) followed suit in 1835, with the former slaves “apprenticed” to their former masters until 1 February 1839, at which time they became freemen.^[20] Following emancipation, the former slaves became contract employees of the various Plantation owners throughout the Chagos. Contracts were required by colonial law to be renewed before a Magistrate at least every two years, but the distance from the nearest Colonial headquarters (on Mauritius) meant few visits by officials,^[21] and that meant that these contract workers often stayed for decades between the visits of the Magistrate, and this is little doubt that some remained for a lifetime.^[22]

Those workers born in the Chagos were referred to as Creoles des Iles, or Ilois for short, a French Creole word meaning "Islanders"^[23] until the late 1990s, when they adopted the name Chagossians or Chagos Islanders. With no other work to be had, and all the islands granted by the Governor of Mauritius to the Plantation owners,^[24] life continued for the Chagossians as it would in a Eurocentric slave society with European managers and Ilois workers and their families.^[25]

On the Chagos, this involved specific tasks, and rewards including housing (such as it was), rations and rum, and a relatively distinct Creole society developed.^[26] Over the decades, Mauritian, Seychellois, Chinese, Somali, and Indian workers were employed on the island at various times in the late 19th Century and early 20th Century, contributing to the Chagossian culture, as did as Plantation managers and administrators, visiting ships crews and passengers, British and Indian garrison troops stationed on the island in World War II, and residents of Mauritius - to which individual Chagossians and their families traveled and spent lengthy periods of time.^[27]

Significant demographic shifts in the island population began in 1962 when the French financed, Mauritian Company, Societe Huiliere de Diego et Peros, which had consolidated ownership of all the plantations in the Chagos in 1883,^[28] sold the plantations to the Seychelles Company, Chagos-Agalega Company, which then owned the entire Chagos Archipelago, except for six acres at the mouth of the Diego Garcia lagoon.^[29] Thus, At no time did anyone living on the islands actually own a piece of real property there.^[24][30] Even the “resident” managers of the plantations were simply employees of absentee landlords.

In the 1930s, Father Dussercle reported that 60% of the plantation workers were “Children of the Isles”; that is, born in the Chagos.^[31] However, beginning in 1962, the Chagos-Agalega Company began hiring Seychellois contract workers almost exclusively, along with a few from Mauritius, as many of the Ilois left the Chagos because of the change in management; by 1964, 80% of the population were Seychellois under 18-month or 2-year contracts.^[32]

At this same time, the UK and U.S. began talks with the objective of establishing a military base in the Indian Ocean region. The base would need to be on British Territory as the U.S. had no possessions in the region. The U.S. was deeply concerned with the stability of the host nation of any potential base, and sought an unpopulated territory, to avoid the U.N.'s decolonisation requirements and the resulting political issues of sovereignty or anti-Western sentiment. The political posture of an independent Mauritius, from which the remote British islands of the central Indian Ocean were administered, was not clearly known, but was of a nature expected to work against the security of the base.^[33][34]

As a direct result of these geopolitical concerns, the British Colonial Office recommended to the UK Government in October 1964 to detach the Chagos from Mauritius.^{[35] [36]} In January 1965, the U.S. Embassy in London formally requested the detachment of the Chagos as well.^[37] On November 8, the UK created the BIOT by an Order in Council ^[38] On December 30, 1966, the U.S. and UK signed a 50-year agreement to use the Chagos for military purposes, and that each island so used would be without a resident civilian population.^[39] This and other evidence at trial led the UK High Court of Justice Queen’s Bench to decide in 2003 that the UK government ultimately decided to depopulate the entire Chagos to avoid scrutiny by the U.N.'s Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, known as the “Committee of 24”.^[40]

In April 1967, The BIOT Administration bought out Chagos-Agalega for £600,000, thus becoming the sole property owner in the BIOT.^[41] The Crown immediately leased back the properties to Chagos-Agalega^[42] but the company terminated the lease at the end of 1967,^[43] after which the BIOT assigned management of the plantations to the former managers of Chagos-Agalega, who had incorporated in the Seychelles as Moulinie and Company, Limited.^[43]

Throughout the 20th Century, there existed a total population of approximately one thousand individuals, with a peak population of 1,142 on all islands was recorded in 1953.^[44] In 1966, the population was 924.^[45] This population was fully employed. Although it was common for local plantation managers to allow “pensioners” and the disabled to remain in the islands and continue to receive rations in exchange for light work, children after the age of 12 were required to work^[46] In 1964, only 3 of a population of 963 were unemployed.^[47]

In the latter half of the 20th century, there were thus three major strands to the population - Mauritian and Seychelles contract workers (including management), and the Ilois.^[48] There is no agreement as to the numbers of Ilois living in the BIOT prior to 1971.^[49] However, the UK and Mauritius agreed in 1972 that there were 426 Ilois families numbering 1,151 individuals^[50] who left the Chagos for Mauritius voluntarily or involuntarily between 1965 and 1973.^[51] In 1977, the Mauritian government independently listed a total of 557 families totaling 2,323 people - 1,068 adults and 1,255 children - a number which included families that left voluntarily before the creation of the BIOT and never returned to the Chagos.^[52] The number reported by the Mauritian government in 1978 to have received compensation was 2,365 - 1,081 adults and 1,284 minor children.^[53] The Mauritian Government’s Ilois Trust Fund Board certified 1,579 individuals as Ilois in 1982.^[54]

The entire population of the Chagos, including the Ilois, was removed to Mauritius and the Seychelles by 27 April 1973.^[1]

Diego Garcia and Mauritian independence

On 12 March 1968, Mauritius gained independence from Britain.

At some stage prior to this date, the United States and the United Kingdom consulted each other on the fate of the islands. The United States wanted "an austere communications facility" in the Indian Ocean and asked Britain for use of any Indian Ocean territory that might be suitable.

This would be under a leasing agreement^{[citation needed]} — British-owned but US-run, as at Ascension Island or Lakenheath.

CIA map of Diego Garcia

The United States government initially asked for the Aldabra Atoll, which had no human inhabitants. However, it was found to be home to the rare Aldabra tortoise. There are around 100,000 of these creatures on the islands which, due to their isolation, form a natural 'niche'. The wildlife lobby ensured that the US plans for Aldabra were dropped.^{[citation needed]}

Diego Garcia is the largest of the Chagos Islands. At fourteen miles by four, it is large enough to build a number of full-length runways. The island is also horseshoe-shaped, making it a natural harbour capable of containing a large US Naval fleet. To the Cabinet of Harold Wilson, Diego Garcia seemed a natural second choice for the US government,^{[citation needed]} who wished the island to be unpopulated for security reasons.

However, this was considered a problem insofar as it may have been contrary to international law^{[citation needed]} to separate Diego Garcia and retain it after Mauritian independence. The second problem facing the British was that, under principles of self-determination expressed by Article 73 of the UN Charter, it is stated that "the interests of the inhabitants of a territory are paramount" in determining its future.

British purchase of the Chagos

The problem of Mauritian sovereignty over the Chagos archipelago was circumvented at a 1965 London conference prior to the independence of Mauritius. Mauritian Prime Minister Seewoosagur Ramgoolam was persuaded to sell the Chagos to Britain for the price of £3 million (1967 rate).^{[citation needed]} Ramgoolam was later awarded a knighthood in the 1965 New Year's Honours List, and it is speculated^[who?] that this may have been a form of reward for the sale.

Through the sale the Chagos and a handful of other Indian Ocean islands (including tortoise-rich Aldabra and neighbouring Agalega) became a new British overseas territory — the British Indian Ocean Territory.

In 1966, with the ownership of the Chagos secured, Great Britain and the United States executed an "exchange of notes" making the island of Diego Garcia available for the defence needs of both countries for the next 50 years.

Depopulation

In early March 1967, the British Commissioner declared BIOT Ordinance Number Two. This unilateral proclamation was called the Acquisition of Land for Public Purposes (Private Treaty) Ordinance and enabled him to acquire any land he liked (for the UK government). On 3 April of that year, under the provisions of the order, the British government bought all the plantations of the Chagos archipelago for £660,000 from the Chagos Agalega Company. It has been suggested^[who?] that the plan was to deprive the Chagossians of an income and so encourage them to leave the island voluntarily.^{[citation needed]} In a memo dating from this period,^{[citation needed]} Colonial Office head Denis Greenhill (later Lord Greenhill of Harrow) wrote to the British Delegation at the UN^{[citation needed]}:

The object of the exercise is to get some rocks which will remain ours; there will be no indigenous population except seagulls who have not yet got a committee. Unfortunately, along with the seagulls go some few Tarzans and Man Fridays that are hopefully being wished on Mauritius.

Another internal Colonial Office memo read^{[citation needed]}:

The Colonial Office is at present considering the line to be taken in dealing with the existing inhabitants of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). They wish to avoid using the phrase 'permanent inhabitants' in relation to any of the islands in the territory because to recognise that there are any permanent inhabitants will imply that there is a population whose democratic rights will have to be safeguarded and which will therefore be deemed by the UN to come within its purlieu. The solution proposed is to issue them with documents making it clear that they are 'belongers' of Mauritius and the Seychelles and only temporary residents of BIOT. This devise, [sic] although rather transparent, would at least give us a defensible position to take up at the UN.

Advocates of the Chagossians^[who?] (see links below) claim that the number of Chagossian residents on Diego Garcia was deliberately under-counted in order to play down the scale of the proposed depopulation.^{[citation needed]} Three years before the depopulation plan was concocted, the British Governor of Mauritius, Sir Robert Scott, is said to have estimated the permanent population of Diego Garcia at 1,700.^{[citation needed]} In a BIOT report made in June 1968,^{[citation needed]} the British government estimated that only 354 Chagossians were third generation 'belongers' on the islands. This number subsequently fell in further reports.^{[citation needed]}

Later that year, the British government asked for help from the legal department of their own Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) in creating a legal basis for depopulating the islands.^{[citation needed]} The first paragraph of the FCO's reply read^{[citation needed]}:

The purpose of the Immigration Ordinance is to maintain the fiction that the inhabitants of the Chagos are not a permanent or semi-permanent population. The Ordinance would be published in the BIOT gazette which has only very limited circulation. Publicity will therefore be minimal.

The government is therefore often accused^[who?] of deciding to clear all the islanders by denying they ever belonged on Diego Garcia in the first place and then removing them.^{[citation needed]} This was to be done by issuing an ordinance that the island be cleared of all non-inhabitants. The legal obligation to announce the decision was fulfilled by publishing the notice in a small-circulation gazette not generally read outside of FCO staff.

For many years, family groups of Chagossians had made trips to the Mauritian mainland on the periodic steamers that collected the copra from Diego Garcia.^{[citation needed]} There they would spend the money they had earned in the townships, and experience something of modern life.^{[citation needed]} When they had tired of this, they would simply get on the next steamer home - even though this might mean a wait on Mauritius of several months.^{[citation needed]}

Starting in March 1969, Chagossians visiting Mauritius found that they were no longer allowed to get on the steamer home.^{[citation needed]} They were told their contracts to work on Diego Garcia had expired.^{[citation needed]} This left them homeless, jobless and without means of support.^{[citation needed]} It also prevented word from reaching the rest of the Diego Garcia population.^{[citation needed]} Relatives who travelled to Mauritius to seek their missing family members also found themselves unable to return.^{[citation needed]}

'A Memorandum of Guidance' (1970)

In 1970, British MP Tam Dalyell heard about what was happening to the Chagossians and gave notice that he intended to ask a number of questions in Parliament. Within days of Dalyell's notification, Eleanor Emery, head of the Indian Ocean Department at the FCO, drafted a 'memorandum of guidance' for internal circulation.^{[citation needed]} The reason for the memorandum, she stated, was 'a recent revival of public interest in the British Indian Ocean Territory'.^{[citation needed]}

She then stated:^{[citation needed]}

We shall continue to try to say as little as possible to avoid embarrassing the United States administration.

Apart from our overall strategic and defence interests, we are also concerned at present not to have to elaborate on the administrative implications for the present population of Diego Garcia of the establishment of any base there.

We would not wish it to become general knowledge that some of the inhabitants have lived on Diego Garcia for several generations and could, therefore, be regarded as 'belongers'.

We shall advise ministers in handling supplementary questions to say that there is only a small number of contract workers from the Seychelles and Mauritius, engaged to work on the copra plantations.

Should an MP ask about what would happen to these contract labourers in the event of a base being set up on the island, we hope that, for the present, this can be brushed aside as a hypothetical question at least until any decision to go ahead with the Diego Garcia facility becomes public.

U.S. Navy personnel arrive

The Chagossians help United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency personnel bring equipment ashore in 1968. Photo by Kirby Crawford.

On 23 January 1971, a nine-man advance party from the U.S. Navy's Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 40 (NMCB-40) landed on Diego Garcia to confirm planning information and conduct a survey for beach landing areas.

At 5 p.m. local time on 9 March 1971, the USS Vernon County (LST-1161) arrived at Diego Garcia. The next day, she began underwater and beach surveys in preparation for beaching. Two days after that, the ship beached and began offloading men and construction equipment for construction of a U.S. Navy base on Diego Garcia.

Construction continued for the remainder of the summer, with the completion (28 July 1971) of the first runway on the island (3,500 ft in length).

The last Chagossians are removed

In March 1971, a BIOT civil servant^[who?] travelled from Mauritius to tell the Chagossians that they were to leave. A memorandum related that^{[citation needed]}:

I told the inhabitants that we intended to close the island in July. A few of them asked whether they could receive some compensation for leaving 'their own country.' I kicked this into touch by saying that our intention was to cause as little disruption to their lives as possible.

Some weeks later, the remaining Chagossians began packing their belongings and nailing shut their houses. They were shipped to Mauritius by the U.S. Navy as they became ready.^{[citation needed]} On 15 October 1971, the few remaining Chagossians held a last Mass in the island's one church.^{[citation needed]}

Later that day, the last of the Chagossians and their families were shipped out on the MV Nordvaer.^{[citation needed]} They arrived at Mauritius and were left at Port Louis.^{[citation needed]}

International law

The case has not been heard by any international court of law. No right of petition exists "in right of" the British Indian Ocean Territory to either the European Court of Human Rights or the UN Human Rights Committee.

According to Article 7(d) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court which established the International Criminal Court (ICC), "deportation or forcible transfer of population" constitutes a crime against humanity if it is "committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack". The ICC is not retroactive: alleged crimes committed before 1 July 2002 cannot be judged by the ICC.^{[55][clarification needed]}

Compensation

The British Government had allocated £650,000 "in full and final settlement of HMG's obligations" towards its dispossessed citizens - slightly less than £3000 per head.^{[citation needed]} This money went to the Mauritian government to defray the costs of resettling the Chagossians.^{[citation needed]} The Mauritian government, however, did not recognise it had a duty to resettle the Chagossians.^{[citation needed]}

Protests

The Chagossians had been left homeless in an island where unemployment already stood at 20 percent.^{[citation needed]} Moreover, their trade was copra farming which was not translatable to the local economy as Mauritius's chief crop was sugar cane.^{[citation needed]} The Chagossians also spoke a patois unique to Diego Garcia,^{[citation needed]} meaning it would be difficult to integrate with Mauritians.^{[citation needed]}

A few of the literate exiles put together a petition that they presented to the British High Commissioner, asking for a house and a plot of land for each family, so that they could support themselves.^{[citation needed]} The Commissioner immediately delivered this petition to the Mauritian Government.^{[citation needed]}

Mauritian opposition party the Mouvement Militant Mauricien (MMM) began to question the validity under international law of the purchase of the Chagos and the removal of the Chagossians.^{[citation needed]}

Passenger terminal at Diego Garcia airport, with functioning red British telephone booth

In 1975,^{[citation needed]} David Ottaway of the Washington Post wrote and published an article entitled: "Islanders Were Evicted for U.S. Base" which related the plight of the Chagossians in detail.

This prompted two U.S. Congressional committees^{[citation needed]} to look into the matter. They were told that the 'entire subject of Diego Garcia is considered classified'.^[56]

In November 1975, the Sunday Times published an article entitled The islanders that Britain sold.

That year, a Methodist preacher from Kent, Mr George Champion, began a one-man picket of the FCO, with a placard reading simply: 'DIEGO GARCIA'. This continued until his death in 1982.^{[citation needed]}

In 1976, the government of the Seychelles took the British government to court.^{[citation needed]} The Aldabra, Desroches and Farquhar Islands were returned to the Seychelles and the United States cancelled its 60-year lease of the islands from Britain.^{[citation needed]}

US Navy radome on Diego Garcia

In 1978, at Bain Des Dames in Port Louis, six Chagossian women went on hunger strike and there were demonstrations in the streets (mainly organised by the MMM) over Diego Garcia.^{[citation needed]} In 1979, a Mauritian Committee asked Mr. Vencatassen’s lawyer to negotiate more compensation.^{[citation needed]} In response to this, the British Government offered £1.25m to the surviving Chagossians on the express condition that Vencatassen withdraw his case and that all Chagossians sign a "full and final" document renouncing any right of return to the island.^{[citation needed]} Some of the Chagossians did indeed sign.^{[citation needed]} The document also contained provisions for those that could not write, by allowing the impression of an inked thumbprint to ratify the document.

However, some illiterate islanders claim that they were tricked into signing the documents and that they would never have signed sincerely had they known the outcome of their signatures.^{[citation needed]}

Developments since 2000

The headquarters of BIOT police (2005)

In 2000 the British High Court granted the islanders the right to return to the Archipelago.^[57] In 2002 the islanders and their descendants, now numbering 4,500, returned to court claiming compensation, after what they said were two years of delays by the British Foreign Office.^[58]

However, on 10 June 2004 the British government made two Orders in Council under the Royal Prerogative forever banning the islanders from returning home,^[59] to override the effect of the 2000 court decision. Some of the Chagossians are making return plans to turn Diego Garcia into a sugarcane and fishing enterprise as soon as the defence agreement expires (some see this as early as 2016). A few dozen other Chagossians are still fighting to be housed in the UK.^[60]

On 11 May 2006 the British High Court ruled that the 2004 Orders-in-Council were unlawful, and consequently that the Chagossians were entitled to return to the Chagos Archipelago.^[61] An action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against Robert McNamara, the former United States Secretary of Defense, was dismissed as a nonjusticiable political question.^[62][63]

On 23 May 2007, the UK Government's appeal against the 2006 High Court ruling was dismissed,^[64] and they took the matter to the House of Lords.^[65] On 22 October 2008, the UK Government won on appeal, the House of Lords overturned the 2006 High Court ruling^[66][67] and upheld the two 2004 Orders-in-Council and with them the Government's ban on anyone returning.^[68]

Diplomatic cables leaks

According to leaked diplomatic cables obtained by Wikileaks and released in 2010,^[69] in a calculated move in 2009 to prevent re-settlement of the BIOT by native Chagossians, the UK proposed that the BIOT become a "marine reserve" with the aim of preventing the former inhabitants from returning to their lands. The summary of the diplomatic cable is as follows :

HMG would like to establish a “marine park” or “reserve” providing comprehensive environmental protection to the reefs and waters of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), a senior Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) official informed Polcouns on May 12. The official insisted that the establishment of a marine park -- the world’s largest -- would in no way impinge on USG use of the BIOT, including Diego Garcia, for military purposes. He agreed that the UK and U.S. should carefully negotiate the details of the marine reserve to assure that U.S. interests were safeguarded and the strategic value of BIOT was upheld. He said that the BIOT’s former inhabitants would find it difficult, if not impossible, to pursue their claim for resettlement on the islands if the entire Chagos Archipelago were a marine reserve.

References

1. ^ ^{a b} [1] The High Court of Justice Queens Bench Division, Case No: HQ02X01287, Approved Judgment, 2003, Paragraph 396.
2. ^ Peter H. Sand, "United States and Britain in Diego Garcia - The Future of a Controversial Base", 2009, Palgrave MacMillon, New York, p. 69.
3. ^ [2] The High Court of Justice Queens Bench Division, Case No: HQ02X01287, Approved Judgment, 2003.
4. ^ ^{a b} [3] England and Wales High Court, Case No: CO/4093/2004, 2006, Handed Down Judgment.
5. ^ [4] England and Wales High Court, Case No: CO/4093/2004, 2006, Handed Down Judgment, Paragraph 67.
6. ^ [5] The High Court of Justice Queens Bench Division, Case No: HQ02X01287, Approved Judgment, 2003, Paragraph 406.
7. ^ [6] The High Court of Justice Queens Bench Division, Case No: HQ02X01287, Approved Judgment, 2003, Paragraph 77.
8. ^ [7] The High Court of Justice Queens Bench Division, Case No: HQ02X01287, Approved Judgment, 2003, Paragraph 580.
9. ^ ^{a b} [8] England and Wales High Court of Justice Queens Bench Division (The Administrative Court) ruling.
10. ^ [9] The High Court of Justice Queens Bench Division, Case No: HQ02X01287, Approved Judgment, 2003.
11. ^ [10] United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 01-2629 (RMU)
12. ^ [11]
13. ^ UK Designates World’s Larget Marine Reserve. Press Release, The Chagos Environmental Network, 1 April 2010.
14. ^ Vidal, John (29 March 2010). "Chagos Islanders attack plan to turn archipelago into protected area". The Guardian (London). http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/29/chagos-island-marine-reserve-plans. Retrieved 1 May 2010. 
15. ^ Juniper, Tony (27 January 2010). "Chagos is our chance to preserve a natural wonder". The Guardian (London). http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/jan/27/chagos-preserve-natural-wonder. Retrieved 1 May 2010. 
16. ^ Pearce, Fred (18 February 2010). "The Chagos archipelago – where conservation meets colonialism". The Guardian (London). http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/18/chagos-nature-reserve-greenwash. Retrieved 1 May 2010. 
17. ^ The Guardian - Chagos Islanders attack plan to turn archipelago into protected area, paragraph 10. 29 March 2010
18. ^ "leaked US diplomatic cable". http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/05/09LONDON1156.html. Retrieved 2010-12-01. 
19. ^ Richard Edis, "Peak of Limuria" Antony Rowe Ltd., Chippenham (UK) 2004, p. 32.
20. ^ ^{a b c} [12] Taylor, Donald, Slavery in the Chagos Archipelago, Chagos News, January 2000.
21. ^ [13] The High Court of Justice Queens Bench Division, Case No: HQ02X01287, Approved Judgment, 2003, Paragraphs 9 and 214.
22. ^ [14] The High Court of Justice Queens Bench Division, Case No: HQ02X01287, Approved Judgment, 2003, Paragraph 7.
23. ^ [15] The High Court of Justice Queens Bench Division, Case No: HQ02X01287, Approved Judgment, 2003, Paragraph 86.
24. ^ ^{a b} [16] England and Wales High Court of Justice Queens Bench Division (The Administrative Court) ruling, Paragraph 7.
25. ^ Richard Edis, "Peak of Limuria" Antony Rowe Ltd., Chippenham (UK) 2004, p. 39-40.
26. ^ Pridham, C., England’s Colonial Empire: Mauritius and its Dependencies, Smith, Elder, 1846, p. 403.
27. ^ [17] The High Court of Justice Queens Bench Division, Case No: HQ02X01287, Approved Judgment, 2003, Paragraph 9.
28. ^ Richard Edis, "Peak of Limuria" Antony Rowe Ltd., Chippenham (UK) 2004, p. 40.
29. ^ [18] The High Court of Justice Queens Bench Division, Case No: HQ02X01287, Approved Judgment, 2003, Paragraph 95.
30. ^ [19] The High Court of Justice Queens Bench Division, Case No: HQ02X01287, Approved Judgment, 2003, Paragraphs 221, 385, and 386.
31. ^ Richard Edis, "Peak of Limuria" Antony Rowe Ltd., Chippenham (UK) 2004, p. 58.
32. ^ Richard Edis, "Peak of Limuria" Antony Rowe Ltd., Chippenham (UK) 2004, p. 82.
33. ^ [20] England and Wales High Court of Justice Queens Bench Division (The Administrative Court) ruling, Paragraphs 11 and 14.
34. ^ [21] The High Court of Justice Queens Bench Division, Case No: HQ02X01287, Approved Judgment, 2003, Paragraph 15.
35. ^ [22] The High Court of Justice Queens Bench Division, Case No: HQ02X01287, Approved Judgment, 2003, Paragraph 27.
36. ^ [23] England and Wales High Court, Case No: CO/4093/2004, 2006, Handed Down Judgment, Paragraph 22.
37. ^ [24] The High Court of Justice Queens Bench Division, Case No: HQ02X01287, Approved Judgment, 2003, Paragraph 28.
38. ^ [25] The High Court of Justice Queens Bench Division, Case No: HQ02X01287, Approved Judgment, 2003, Paragraph 17.
39. ^ Peter H. Sand, "United States and Britain in Diego Garcia - The Future of a Controversial Base", 2009, Palgrave MacMillon, New York, p. 70.
40. ^ [26] The High Court of Justice Queens Bench Division, Case No: HQ02X01287, Approved Judgment, 2003, Paragraphs 233, 234, and 267.
41. ^ [27] England and Wales High Court, Case No: CO/4093/2004, 2006, Handed Down Judgment, Paragraph 41.
42. ^ [28] The High Court of Justice Queens Bench Division, Case No: HQ02X01287, Approved Judgment, 2003, Paragraph 96.
43. ^ ^{a b} [29] The High Court of Justice Queens Bench Division, Case No: HQ02X01287, Approved Judgment, 2003, Paragraph 106.
44. ^ Foreign & Commonwealth Office, BIOT: Health & Mortality in the Chagos Islands, London, 2000
45. ^ [30] The High Court of Justice Queens Bench Division, Case No: HQ02X01287, Approved Judgment, 2003, Paragraph 23.
46. ^ [31] The High Court of Justice Queens Bench Division, Case No: HQ02X01287, Approved Judgment, 2003, Paragraphs 217 and 344.
47. ^ [32] The High Court of Justice Queens Bench Division, Case No: HQ02X01287, Approved Judgment, 2003, Paragraph 12.
48. ^ [33] The High Court of Justice Queens Bench Division, Case No: HQ02X01287, Approved Judgment, 2003, Paragraph 10.
49. ^ [34] England and Wales High Court of Justice Queens Bench Division (The Administrative Court) ruling, Paragraph 6.
50. ^ Peter H. Sand, "United States and Britain in Diego Garcia - The Future of a Controversial Base", 2009, Palgrave MacMillon, New York, p. 25.
51. ^ [35] The High Court of Justice Queens Bench Division, Case No: HQ02X01287, Approved Judgment, 2003, Paragraph 417.
52. ^ [36] The High Court of Justice Queens Bench Division, Case No: HQ02X01287, Approved Judgment, 2003, Paragraph 523.
53. ^ [37] The High Court of Justice Queens Bench Division, Case No: HQ02X01287, Approved Judgment, 2003, Paragraph 421.
54. ^ [38] The High Court of Justice Queens Bench Division, Case No: HQ02X01287, Approved Judgment, 2003, Paragraph 629.
55. ^ International Criminal Court - Frequently asked questions
56. ^ http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/bancoult-d16d.html#102
57. ^ Case of R (on the application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2001] 3 LRC 249
58. ^ Case of Chagos Islanders v The Attorney General and another [2003] EWHC 2222 (QB)
59. ^ http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029391629&a=KArticle&aid=1087553733971
60. ^ "Exiles protest in Downing Street". BBC News. 3 November 2004. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/3977853.stm. Retrieved 1 May 2010. 
61. ^ "Britain shamed as exiles of the Chagos Islands win the right to go home By Neil Tweedie". The Daily Telegraph (London). 12 May 2006. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/2006/05/12/wchag12.xml. Retrieved 1 May 2010. 
62. ^ http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200604/05-5049a.pdf
63. ^ "Abuse of executive power over Chagos Islanders". London: The Times. 31 May 2007. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/reports/article1862399.ece. 
64. ^ BBC News: Chagos families win legal battle, 23 May 2007
65. ^ BBC News: Chagos families making visit home, 29 February 2008
66. ^ R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State For Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, [2008] UKHL 61.
67. ^ BBC News: Chagos exiles ruling overturned, 22 October 2008
68. ^ AFP: Britain wins appeal over Chagos islanders' return home
69. ^ "HMG FLOATS PROPOSAL FOR MARINE RESERVE COVERING". Embassy London. 2009-05-15. http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/05/09LONDON1156.html. Retrieved 2010-12-02. 

External links

• Archive of "Let Them Return", The Chagos People's Homeland Campaign
• Chagossian protestor site
• UK Chagos support
• http://www.counterpunch.org/pilger10062004.html
• http://www.granta.com/Magazine/73
• http://www.lalitmauritius.com/deigohowdiego.htm
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk_politics/1005064.stm
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/oct/02/foreignpolicy.comment Paradise cleansed, an article by John Pilger, October 2, 2004. See also Pilger, John, Freedom Next Time http://www.amazon.co.uk/Freedom-Next-Time-John-Pilger/dp/0552773328 / http://www.booksattransworld.co.uk/catalog/book.htm?command=Search&db=twmain.txt&eqisbndata=0593055527
• Stealing a Nation, a 2004 documentary by John Pilger (at Google Video)
• A Return from Exile in Sight? The Chagossians and their Struggle, from the Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights
• http://web.archive.org/web/20051023230212/http://www.lalitmauritius.com/kronoloziprufrid.htm Chagos Archipelagos timeline (October 2005 archive)