Paradise Lost (not John Milton's)

[caton]

Dear Old and Future Friends,


It´s nice to write you again.
I want to earnestly thank Sakura for her succesfull effort
to make a neutral forum, free from arbitrary censorship and to those who collaborate with her for that.

For old timers, I want to say that I have not forgotten them, I am simply establishing a new independent bussiness (successfull, thanks God). I'm afraid I don`t have enough time as to participate as I should, but I'll try to contribute my six pences whenever possible.


I include an article by the Guardian that I couldn't keep for myself. I keep my tradition of quoting "good British sources" so they cannot be accused of "British bashing".

I wonder what would HMG say had we proceeded in the way the article despicts.

Very best regards,

Catón (alias Javier)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

October 4, 2004

Paradise Cleansed
by John Pilger


There are times when one tragedy, one crime tells us how a whole system works behind its democratic facade and helps us to understand how much of the world is run for the benefit of the powerful and how governments lie. To understand the catastrophe of Iraq, and all the other Iraqs along imperial history's trail of blood and tears, one need look no further than Diego Garcia.The story of Diego Garcia is shocking, almost incredible. A British colony lying midway between Africa and Asia in the Indian Ocean, the island is one of 64 unique coral islands that form the Chagos Archipelago, a phenomenon of natural beauty, and once of peace. Newsreaders refer to it in passing: "American B-52 and Stealth bombers last night took off from the uninhabited British island of Diego Garcia to bomb Iraq (or Afghanistan)." It is the word "uninhabited" that turns the key on the horror of what was done there. In the 1970s, the Ministry of Defense in London produced this epic lie: "There is nothing in our files about a population and an evacuation." Diego Garcia was first settled in the late 18th century. At least 2,000 people lived there: a gentle Creole nation with thriving villages, a school, a hospital, a church, a prison, a railway, docks, a copra plantation. Watching a film shot by missionaries in the 1960s, I can understand why every Chagos islander I have met calls it paradise; there is a grainy sequence where the islanders' beloved dogs are swimming in the sheltered, palm-fringed lagoon, catching fish. All this began to end when an American rear admiral stepped ashore in 1961 and Diego Garcia was marked as the site of what is today one of the biggest American bases in the world. There are now more than 2,000 troops, anchorage for 30 warships, a nuclear dump, a satellite spy station, shopping malls, bars and a golf course. "Camp Justice," the Americans call it. During the 1960s, in high secrecy, the Labor government of Harold Wilson conspired with two American administrations to "sweep" and "sanitize" the islands: the words used in American documents. Files found in the National Archives in Washington and the Public Record Office in London provide an astonishing narrative of official lying all too familiar to those who have chronicled the lies over Iraq. To get rid of the population, the Foreign Office invented the fiction that the islanders were merely transient contract workers who could be "returned" to Mauritius, 1,000 miles away. In fact, many islanders traced their ancestry back five generations, as their cemeteries bore witness. The aim, wrote a Foreign Office official in January 1966, "is to convert all the existing residents ... into short-term, temporary residents." What the files also reveal is an imperious attitude of brutality. In August 1966, Sir Paul Gore-Booth, permanent undersecretary at the Foreign Office, wrote: "We must surely be very tough about this. The object of the exercise was to get some rocks that will remain ours. There will be no indigenous population except seagulls." At the end of this is a handwritten note by D.H. Greenhill, later Baron Greenhill: "Along with the Birds go some Tarzans or Men Fridays ..." Under the heading, "Maintaining the fiction," another official urges his colleagues to reclassify the islanders as "a floating population" and to "make up the rules as we go along." There is not a word of concern for their victims. Only one official appeared to worry about being caught, writing that it was "fairly unsatisfactory" that "we propose to certify the people, more or less fraudulently, as belonging somewhere else." The documents leave no doubt that the cover-up was approved by the prime minister and at least three cabinet ministers. At first, the islanders were tricked and intimidated into leaving; those who had gone to Mauritius for urgent medical treatment were prevented from returning. As the Americans began to arrive and build the base, Sir Bruce Greatbatch, the governor of the Seychelles, who had been put in charge of the "sanitizing," ordered all the pet dogs on Diego Garcia to be killed. Almost 1,000 pets were rounded up and gassed, using the exhaust fumes from American military vehicles. "They put the dogs in a furnace where the people worked," says Lizette Tallatte, now in her 60s," ... and when their dogs were taken away in front of them, our children screamed and cried." The islanders took this as a warning; and the remaining population were loaded on to ships, allowed to take only one suitcase. They left behind their homes and furniture, and their lives. On one journey in rough seas, the copra company's horses occupied the deck, while women and children were forced to sleep on a cargo of bird fertilizer. Arriving in the Seychelles, they were marched up the hill to a prison where they were held until they were transported to Mauritius. There, they were dumped on the docks. In the first months of their exile, as they fought to survive, suicides and child deaths were common. Lizette lost two children. "The doctor said he cannot treat sadness," she recalls. Rita Bancoult, now 79, lost two daughters and a son; she told me that when her husband was told the family could never return home, he suffered a stroke and died. Unemployment, drugs and prostitution, all of which had been alien to their society, ravaged them. Only after more than a decade did they receive any compensation from the British government: less than £3,000 each, which did not cover their debts. The behavior of the Blair government is, in many respects, the worst. In 2000, the islanders won a historic victory in the high court, which ruled their expulsion illegal. Within hours of the judgment, the Foreign Office announced that it would not be possible for them to return to Diego Garcia because of a "treaty" with Washington – in truth, a deal concealed from parliament and the U.S. Congress. As for the other islands in the group, a "feasibility study" would determine whether these could be resettled. This has been described by Professor David Stoddart, a world authority on the Chagos, as "worthless" and "an elaborate charade." The "study" consulted not a single islander; it found that the islands were "sinking," which was news to the Americans who are building more and more base facilities; the U.S. Navy describes the living conditions as so outstanding that they are "unbelievable." In 2003, in a now notorious follow-up high court case, the islanders were denied compensation, with government counsel allowed by the judge to attack and humiliate them in the witness box, and with Justice Ousley referring to "we" as if the court and the Foreign Office were on the same side. Last June, the government invoked the archaic royal prerogative in order to crush the 2000 judgment. A decree was issued that the islanders were banned forever from returning home. These were the same totalitarian powers used to expel them in secret 40 years ago; Blair used them to authorize his illegal attack on Iraq. Led by a remarkable man, Olivier Bancoult, an electrician, and supported by a tenacious and valiant London lawyer, Richard Gifford, the islanders are going to the European court of human rights, and perhaps beyond. Article 7 of the statute of the international criminal court describes the "deportation or forcible transfer of population ... by expulsion or other coercive acts" as a crime against humanity. As Bush's bombers take off from their paradise, the Chagos islanders, says Bancoult, "will not let this great crime stand. The world is changing; we will win."

This article first appeared in The Guardian.



John Pilger was born and educated in Sydney, Australia. He has been a war correspondent, film-maker and playwright. Based in London, he has written from many countries and has twice won British journalism's highest award, that of "Journalist of the Year," for his work in Vietnam and Cambodia.

[Johnmcd]

Javier,
Good to see you touching base, especially with a report from John Pilger, a journalist whose work I’ve always admired.

I read his book ‘Heroes’, all about the tragedy in Cambodia, before I actually went there to serve with the UN some years ago. John definitely reflects our conscious when we look around this dismal world of ours. He also wrote many an informative article about the ‘dirty war’ one of which I copied on the other forum some time ago.

John Pilger is a great moralist and humanist, I have no doubt. But I disagree with his stand over Iraq, while wholly agreeing with his comments concerning Diego Garcia.

His view on Iraq is personal and really does not reflect the current views of most Iraqi’s themselves. Almost all Iraqi’s want the insurgents out, greater internal security, coalition troops then to go, and most importantly, have free and uninterrupted democratic elections. None of them want a return to the days of Saddam, not unless they live in the Sunni triangle.

Their day in the short world history of freedom and democracy would never have come about without intervention. John Pilger does not acknowledge this and that’s a real shame.

Best wishes,
John.

[Maquilishuat]

Hola Javier!

Welcome!

This article considering the cleansing in Diego Garcia is appaling and should always be on our minds as an example regarding the British position in the Malvinas archipelago. I am sure that if the Islanders wanted to be Argentineans they would didmiss this as impossible and not worth considering.

John,

It seems that you follow the media, even now knowing that the reasoning for invading Irak were plain lies. Now you endorse the position that the the Iraqis want the insurgents out, as if they were not Iraqis. What Iraqi entity are you referring to is impossible to know. Only a mad group would want invaders to stay in their country or to solve their internal problems, and to take their oil as payment.

Iraqi was conquered not liberated.

Maquilishuat

[Johnmcd]

Not that it will mean anything to you….

3 years ago all the leaders that sit in prime seats at the UN all concluded that Saddam had a WDM arsenal. Not just the USA and UK, but Russia, France and Germany including those countries closest to Iraq. Clearly we know now this was an overestimation from various intelligence agencies whose reasoning is always based on the worst possible scenario when hard fact is scare.

Why did all these countries believe that Saddam had something to hide?

Back 1998 Saddam kicked out the UN weapon inspectors, choosing deliberately to attract suspicion. This, and his previous willingness, to use chemical weapons against the Kurds at home and against Iranian troops abroad showed that he was a perverted ticking bomb waiting to explode.

Let me ask you this question…<br>If the UN inspectors had been given more time and concluded that WMD stocks had been disposed of and them gone home; would not Saddam then have re-stocked his WMD arsenal once the bug of the UN was off his back? It appears from the final ISG report that Saddam was patiently waiting to do exactly this and was using Oil for Food money to bribe anyone who could help him – possibly, even President Chirac – his close ally at the UN.

It was right to take him out and get the bugger behind bars, much the same as it was right to wage war against Hitler (he was no threat to the UK in 1939) but we understood then, as we do now, that do nothing against madmen is never an option.

Also you have no right by fact to say that the insurgents are Iraqi’s themselves. This is not true but we do see the Sunni backbone of Saddam’s supporters still holding out, few as they are, trying to destabilise a small region of the country. The insurgents, however, are from every fundamentalist Islamist group you can name. The Iraqi’s hate them more than US troops. You can now read about this yourself in the free Iraqi press.

Best wishes,
John.

[Sakura26]

Hello All

First of all, I would like to welcome Javier to the forum. I'm glad you're here, and although you don't have too much time now, your contributions are worth to read, and I'm looking forward to do so.

I believe we're facing another problem besides the already known conflict of 1982. For a conflict to be solved peacefully there's an essencial ingredient we dont have here, and that is, knowing what are the mistakes we made, are making and will probably make, in order to avoid them.

I've heard thousands of times about how Argentina didn't apologise about the war. As an Argentine myself, I do consider that a democratic government here should write an official apology for something done by a de facto government . It has nothing to do with the claim and it doesnt weaken it. It's just a demonstration of the friendly intentions of Argentina, which only wants to recover a territory that, we believe it's ours.

But, from what I've read from Hutch and John, if we're facing a Great Britain that will not apologise to Irak, that will not recognise its mistake invading the land agaisnt UN orders, and that not even wants to see their mistake, and worse, they keep believing they are right, because Iraki people love to have them around, feeling the humiliation of having their land taken and their lives controlled, by countries that are desperate to get their oil and have obvious personal issues against them... then, trying to have a reasoning with a country like this, is just a lose of time for Argentina.

I feel like Britain has the strange sensation that they are right all the time and have the power to point at other countries' mistakes as if they were not making any.

Hutch told me losing a war was a failure. Was it? Is this Irak's failure that could not kick british and american forces out of their territories?

Britan has had a wonderful history of wars won. Maybe for some countries violence is just the only way to get things. From this point of view, I do understand Hutch. Thank God, from mine, and my country's and the way we have been taught, I consider myself far more suitable to protect peace.

The invasion of Irak was an awful mistake. Talking about freedom, democracy and tirany is not going to cover the atrocities done there. Nobody asked the iraki people if they wanted this. You just supposed they did, because you didn't like Saddam.

There's not too much an apology could make now, but, if Britain took its forces out of Irak and writes an apology recognizing a big mistake done for following a crazy drunk american president, it will gain my respect again.

Best Wishes
Noelia

[Johnmcd]

“But, from what I've read from Hutch and John, if we're facing a Great Britain that will not apologise to Irak, that will not recognise its mistake invading the land agaisnt UN orders, and that not even wants to see their mistake, and worse, they keep believing they are right, because Iraki people love to have them around, feeling the humiliation of having their land taken and their lives controlled, by countries that are desperate to get their oil and have obvious personal issues against them... then, trying to have a reasoning with a country like this, is just a lose of time for Argentina.”<br>
Come on Noelia!
If the UK did not act in 1982 the chances are would still have what you call a ‘de-facto’ government and not a democratic one. Your argument here is scandalous and conveniently covers the fact that Iraq is heading for free elections through the sacrifice of a great many brave Iraqi’s over the decades and too many US and UK troops. Is this ringing any bells as to what occurred in your country?

Please in the name all things rational – stop accusing the US or the UK for grabbing oil and using war to get it. No one truly believes that anymore. Read this:

From the Guardian – the paper that printed John Pilgers earlier report given by Javier.

France and Russia were last night accused of accepting oil revenues from Saddam Hussein in expectation that they would use their influence on the UN security council to help Iraq, according to the Iraq Survey Group.
The US state department and the Foreign Office have long hinted that the two countries were motivated by financial gain.
The ISG report contains a list of individuals in both countries and elsewhere who are alleged to have been recipients of Iraq's oil revenues. The US held back some of the names in the report.
The report says: "Saddam's regime, in order to induce France to aid in getting sanctions lifted, targeted friendly companies and foreign political parties that possessed either extensive business ties to Iraq or held pro-Iraq positions. In addition, Iraq sought out individuals whom they believed were in a position to influence foreign policy."
A French foreign ministry spokeswoman refused to comment on the allegations until the report had been studied. France was fully cooperating with a UN investigation into the running of the oil for food programme, she said.
The claim will exacerbate relations between the US and France, which have been at a low point since Paris refused to support the war. An Iraq paper in January published a list of individuals alleged to have benefited from Iraq's oil-for-food programme, but the ISG goes further. Citing Iraqi intelligence, it claims that in 1988, Iraq paid $1m (£588,000) to the French Socialist party and that the then Iraqi ambassador to Paris, Razzaq al-Hashimi, handed the money to the then French defence minister, Pierre Joxe.

The report said Iraq's deputy prime minister, Tariq Aziz, "personally awarded several French individuals substantial oil allotments".
According to Mr Aziz, both parties understood the resale of the oil was to be reciprocated through efforts to lift UN sanctions or through opposition to American initiatives.
On Russia, the report says: "Iraq attempts to use oil gifts to influence Russian policymakers were on a lavish and almost indiscriminate scale."
Mr Aziz said Iraq agreed a payment of around $15m to a Russian agent. Payment was agreed by Saddam and was due to be paid in installments in 2002.

[Maquilishuat]

Hola Hutch,

You wrote

If the UK did not act in 1982 the chances are would still have what you call a ‘de-facto’ government and not a democratic one. Your argument here is scandalous and conveniently covers the fact that Iraq is heading for free elections through the sacrifice of a great many brave Iraqi’s over the decades and too many US and UK troops. Is this ringing any bells as to what occurred in your country?

Wait a minute! This is the first time I hear that the British take over of the Malvinas was thought to overtrow the Argentinean junta. So, UK wages wars and afterwards elaborates a rationale to justify them. Now the world is better off Saddam and this was enough to invade. Dont even think about what was said before. The junta was gone and this again justified the war.

Yes, the winners are always right... And owning the media helps a lot to win the hearts and minds...

Saludos, Maquilishuat.

[Gabriel]

Hi to all,

The issue about Irak was not whether or not Saddam was a girl scout, but was he a real and immediate threat? We know the answer now. We also know that Bush lied. This is a proven fact. Now, the question must be: why did he lie?
And about WMD's, what about the Soviets and the Chinese? Why didn't Bush boycott the olimpics instead of invading Irak, just as he and the rest of the hypocrites (NATO) have cowardly done repeatedly in dealing with the Soviet Union?
Why didn't he give preferential trading status to Iraq in the same way it was given to China AFTER China invaded Tibet and adquired nuclear and biological weapons?

Gabriel

[Sea Eagle]

Hola Javier,

Good to see you back my friend, on form even if only briefly and from time to time.

Of course as I would expect you are up to your old ploy of using unrelated arguments to prove an unrelated point.

For example: The removal of the Chagos Islanders to make way for an American airfield is a disgraceful thing to do (I do not disagree).

But the quid pro quo is false because what you really mean is that because they have done this the British Government are also to be held account for their actions in the Falklands in 1833. Even though you know as well as I do that there were no long established civilian residents of the Falklands for the British to expel in 1833 and in fact they only asked the military to leave, which they did, and compelled no civilians to leave at all.

By the way the British move their own civilians when the want to build airfieds and roads etc. in the British Isles as I am sure is also done in other parts of the world by other countries. They do at least have the ability to make representations to an enquiry of course but the outcomes are usually the same. They have to move whatever and the discussion ends up being about how much compensation.

Best wishes,

Ernie

[Maquilishuat]

Hola HutchÇ<br>
Also from The Guardian,

France rejects Iraqi oil claims

Galloway and Russian party leader also deny profiting under Saddam regime

Ewen MacAskill, David Pallister, Jon Henley in Paris and Julian Borger in Washington
Friday October 8, 2004
The Guardian

The French government yesterday angrily rejected accusations by the US-led Iraq Survey Group that its politicians and companies profited from Saddam Hussein's oil revenues.
A prominent Russian party leader also dismissed similar claims, as did the British MP George Galloway.

With US-French relations still strained from the Iraq war, the French foreign ministry issued a tart statement expressing surprise that the ISG had made accusations against companies and individuals "without having taken the trouble to verify the information in advance with the in dividuals and companies concerned, nor indeed with the authorities in their countries".

The ISG, embarrassingly for George Bush and Tony Blair, failed to find weapons of mass destruction. But it included in its report accusations about Saddam's use of oil revenues. Most of the companies and individuals mentioned in the report are from France or Russia. But individuals from other countries are also named, including Mr Galloway.

Mr Galloway, who was out of the country yesterday but issued a statement through his Commons office, denied having profited from his campaign against Iraqi sanctions.

In the main body of the report, the ISG said: "According to a former high-ranking Iraqi official with direct access to the information, there are two Americans and one UK citizen listed as recipients on the list of Iraq's illicit oil allocation programme." It does not name the Briton.

But in an annexe to the report, Mr Galloway's name is mentioned twice as having been allocated oil vouchers, once with a Jordanian businessman, Fawaz Zureikat, and once on his own.

Personally I think we should never believe everything the media writes, for they have their own agenda.

Saludos, Maquilishuat

[caton]

Dear Friends,


Thank you very much for your wellcome.


I’m appaled at the reactions to my last postings. Even though the ethnic cleansing of Diego García is accepted as true, there are some serious omissions from our British friends regarding it.

FIRST: it was a crime.

SECOND: it is STILL BEING COMMITTED, as the expulsed people is not allowed by today’s government (under Mr Tony Blair’s “leadership”) to returned to THEIR island.

THIRD: all people involved in that ethnic cleansing and the maintenance of the present situation should be charged with crimes against Mankind (they do not prescribe).

FOURTH: the nature of the crime is not different that the expulssion of –say- Poles from their homeland by nazi Germany or our people in Malvinas by HMG in 1833. Please note that in the case of Diego García it was carried out to make room for a base, in Poland to make room for their own people and in Malvinas for both reasons.

FIFTH: if HMG carries out the cleansing of Diego García and refuses to “ammend” the crime TODAY while at the same time invokes “self determination” of her own colonists (also TODAY) for refusing sovereignty negociations with Argentina regarding Malvinas, it is quite clear that it is a mere pretext (that is, a LIE).

SIXTH: the situation is simmilar though not exactly the same. Britain refuses to deliver the territories to their legal owners (the Argentineans and the Diego Garcians); where’s the main difference? HMG has STILL not invoked the sacred right of self determination for the US military personnel (that is, the US military personnel “wishes”).


It’s surprising how the issue is shifted to Irak. Anyway, it is another example of violation of self determination, as everybody knows who appointed the puppet government there (have you ever heard aboput Mr Quisling?). In spite of everything the US and Britain had stated, there were no WMD. Let’s suppose –for exercise sake- that it was just a mere “mistake”. How many people have being killed and injured? How many cities had been reduced to rubble? Who is going to pay for that “mistake”, both pennaly and econommically? When will Mr Bliar be trialed and under wich court?


Anyway, it looks like the Irak war was not a mistake, but just a simple and brutal war of aggression, that is, a “crime against peace”. What does that figure mean?

The following is a quote to the Rules for the International court at Nurenberg, that trialed the nazi leadership


QUOTE:

“II - JURISDICTION AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Article 6


(...)
The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsability:

a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the acomplishment of any of the foregoing;
b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill tratment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory , murder or ill-treatment of prisioners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity,
c) (...)

Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.”<br>
[END OF QUOTE] (1)


Many nazi leaders were condemned to the death penalty by the Nurenberg Tribunal, including Messers Goering, foreign minister Ribbentropp, Marschalls Jodl and Keitel, etc. But of course, that happened ONLY AFTER THEY LOST THE WAR.

A) and C) seem to be precisely what has been (and still is) done in Irak, does it not?


Best,

Caton


PS: though the Irak war is a typical imperial war, there is a difference to others from the UK point of view: this time Britain plays the part of the cepoys...

PS II: self determination was also conveniently forgotten for the several MILLIONS Hong Kongers (an island ceded “in perpetuity” to Britain after the infamous Opium War)

PS III: By the way, how many people has been killed today by HMG?

(1) SOURCE: “Julgamento em Nurenberg, epílogo da tragédia” by Leo Kahn, Brazilian edition by Editora Renes Ltds, Rio de Janeiro, 1973 (in Portuguese), first published by Ballantine Books Inc, New York, 1972. The text quoted in it’s original English (not traduced from Portuguese). Leo Khan was born in Germany, 1909, and obtained a Degree in Right and History in the universities of Colonia (Cologne, Köln) and Berlin, where he obtained a Doctorate in Right. He emmigrated to England in 1937 and after IIWW he became Chief of Historical Manuscripts of Wienerd Library of Harvard and from 1964 on, Chief Archivist and Director of the Foreign Documents Centre of the Imperial War Museum of London.

[Johnmcd]

Javier,

I think most Brits have come round the idea that the Chagos islanders were indeed harshly treated. Probably for much longer than you in your weird association with their plight and Argentina’s claim on the Falklands.

From the BBC…..

Q&A: Chagos Islands dispute

The High Court in London has dealt a setback to thousands of islanders battling for compensation from the British Government.
What started the dispute?
The forced removal by the British Government of around 2,000 islanders from the Chagos group of islands, in the Indian Ocean, between 1967 and 1973.
They were moved so the United States could build a military airbase on the island of Diego Garcia, the biggest of the archipelago.
The islanders, who with descendants now number up to 5,000, live in Mauritius but are desperate to return to their homeland.
The community lives in slum conditions, suffers high unemployment and complains of racist treatment by the indigenous population.
What is the aim of the court case?
The action on behalf of surviving Chagossians or their dependants is against the British Government.
It aims to recover a so far undetermined amount of compensation, to achieve restitution of property and declarations relating to the entitlement to return to the islands, and measures making such a move possible.
What is the background to the court case?
In a November 2000 court ruling, two judges said there was "no source of lawful authority" to justify the way the islanders had been moved.
They quashed the 1971 Immigration Ordinance, which was enacted at the time of the removals to give them legal authority and cleared the way for construction of the US military base on Diego Garcia.
The ruling also granted the islanders British citizenship and as a result about 100 came to settle in the UK, around Crawley, near Gatwick airport.
They have since been at the centre of a wrangle between local and central government about who should support them.
What is the British Government's position?
The government's case rests on arguing the Chagossians only ever had contractual rights to the islands, which could be terminated at short notice.
At the time of the removals, the UK said the islanders - descendants of African slaves and Indian plantation workers - were not native but simply temporary labourers.
The Foreign Office says feasibility studies need to be undertaken before any of them can return home, while the US military is opposed to the whole idea.
What has the US done with the territory?
A massive construction effort was launched on Diego Garcia in 1976, and ten years and £300m later it was fully operational as a US airbase.
It was used during the 1990 Gulf War and again for missions supporting action in Afghanistan in 2001 and the invasion of Iraq in early 2003.
The island, and the rest of the Chagos archipelago, remains under British Indian Ocean Territory control, and is subject to UK law. A small detachment of Royal Marines provide local security and enforce immigration and customs rules.

[caton]

Hi, John.

Thanks for your lines.

Regarding the BBC comment:

So?
WAS it not a crime?
IS it not a crime?
Shouldn't all people involved in the cleansing and the maintening of such situation trialed? WHY NOT?

What if we had expulsed the islanders due they were "transient"? They are also about 2000...

What about the "self determination" principle so paramount for the UK regarding Malvinas?

Two places, two different principles. Is it a matter of principle, perhaps?

Oh, the US doesn't want to hear about redelivery of the islands? SO?
They had used the base to kill people by the thousands in Afghanistan and Irak? SO? Does that murderous behaviour gave them any right on the island?

Do you mean that the US military personnel "whishes" should be first?


Best regards,


Javier

[Johnmcd]

Hi Javier,
The crime here, if any, was indeed the forced removal of islanders that had made Diego Garcia a home no matter how temporary and to build an extended military base over those homes no matter how temporary. It was indeed a disgraceful episode - related directly to the Cold War times we then lived in. The Falklands islanders also, at that time, lived mostly as subsistence farmers under the monopolistic rule of the old Falklands Islands Company. This was then the rotten British attitude to overseas territories inhabitants.

The reality even today still rings with old colonialism, as delivered by the Royal Courts of Justice in London that gives much insight into the situation of the Chago islanders at the time of the expulsion.

The Royal Courts determined that Diego Garcia had no administrative centre or recognisable community with government jurisdiction. The islanders moved from island to island quite freely. No one denies or argues against this fact. What was ignored was this way of life not being respected or given protection in a UK that was in post colonial ascendancy.

If there was a crime then no known law was broken other than that enshrined in the Human Rights Charter. If so proven then the UK must oblige with full responsibility for that.

Since then:
The UK made provision for them to move more permanently to Mauritius or to the UK with full British Citizenship. However, we have not given what could be theirs by right and that is self-determination according to their wishes.

So, in this case you are right about a crime – it is one against humanity and against those whose lives came under our duty of care at the time.

What you say about Afghanistan, though, is just not right and hardly compares in any decent debate. Could you imagine a democratic Afghanistan just 3 short years ago when they were under the brutal medieval rule of the Taliban?

Best wishes,
John.

[Sakura26]

Hello Everybody

Let's make something clear about Irak, Afghanistan and what happened there:

We all remember the Gulf War back in the 90's, when the american forces "helped" the iraki people with the same "good intentions" they are helping them now, but, they retired in the middle of the war and left those who gave away their intentions against Saddam alone, and were obviously punished......right? Okay, so from the beginning, this war IS NOT consequence of what happened to the World Trade Center, but an old unfinished bussiness the United States had with Irak.

Afghanistan, as a country, has nothing to do with terrorists of that nationality. There are british, american, asian, spanish, latin and russian terrorists as well, and none of them represent any of the countries/regions named above. Terrorists work on their own, and invading the country they come from, is just a poor, cheap excuse to start a war, in this case, based in the humiliation of being shot at home. We had a couple of huge terrorism attacks here, but Argentina didnt go invande the countries we believe the terrorists are from.

If Bin Laden exists, (my twisted mind has the crazy idea that he could have been a convenient excuse to begin the war), then, the american forces, and the british too if they want to, should be looking for this assasin, instead of destroying Baghdad and play with Saddam who had NO WEAPONS of mass destruction in Irak, just as United Nations predicted.

So, to play God....you must be sure you have God's knowledge, otherwise, the mess you could do in the world could be overwhelming. "la mentira tiene patas cortas" (Lies have short legs) we say in spanish and it's true....Sooner or later people will realize they parents in the army had died for nothing but an old payback bush had with saddam. And the United States will be the most fearing, insecure, targetted country in the world, because every terrorist in this planet will try to take revenge for his country.

What happened in Irak was an awful mistake the american government, headed by Bush made. If people realize this and apologize, things will go better. If it is too humiliating for the States or Britain to apologize for the show off power in Irak, then keep saying you were right and the irakies are cheering at your troops, and dont see the truth. Spain stepped back, but they had to pay a high price. Let's hope nobody else has to pay a price for admiting they were wrong.

Noelia