Editorial in the Telegraph: Islanders denied justice
The former inhabitants of the Chagos archipelago exhausted their recourse to British justice yesterday, when the House of Lords ruled against their being allowed to return home.
For the past decade, the Indian Ocean islanders have been batted like a shuttlecock between the Government and the judiciary. In 2000, the High Court decided they could return to 65 of the islands, from which they were evicted between 1966 and 1973, but not to the atoll of Diego Garcia, the site of a leased American military base.
In 2004, following 9/11 and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Government used the royal prerogative to nullify the decision. That order was overturned last year, whereupon the Government had recourse to the House of Lords.
The Chagossians have been shabbily treated for reasons of realpolitik, a fact that David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, recognises, but has chosen to subordinate to American insistence that resettlement would be a security risk.
What sort of risk does Washington think is posed by the return of the islanders to the outer parts of this British territory, which can be freely visited by yachts?
A second strand of the Foreign Office argument was the cost of resettlement. That, however, is unlikely to be high and should be borne to right an acknowledged wrong...
Read entire article at Telegraph (UK)
For the past decade, the Indian Ocean islanders have been batted like a shuttlecock between the Government and the judiciary. In 2000, the High Court decided they could return to 65 of the islands, from which they were evicted between 1966 and 1973, but not to the atoll of Diego Garcia, the site of a leased American military base.
In 2004, following 9/11 and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Government used the royal prerogative to nullify the decision. That order was overturned last year, whereupon the Government had recourse to the House of Lords.
The Chagossians have been shabbily treated for reasons of realpolitik, a fact that David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, recognises, but has chosen to subordinate to American insistence that resettlement would be a security risk.
What sort of risk does Washington think is posed by the return of the islanders to the outer parts of this British territory, which can be freely visited by yachts?
A second strand of the Foreign Office argument was the cost of resettlement. That, however, is unlikely to be high and should be borne to right an acknowledged wrong...