Hidden Histories: Britain's ethnic cleansing of the Chagos Archipelago (1968-1973)

Rebelheart

Inspired by a unionist poster's given location as 'Diego Garcia' I did a search for that place. To my surprise it is the name of a US-British military base in a remnant of the British Empire that is still in the hands of Britain known as the British Indian Ocean Territory. It seems even in 2012 they for all British cosmopolitan protestations of being beyond their iniquitous Empire just can't let go of this Empire stuff....

Anyway, to my horror it appears that between 1968 and 1973 the British state ethnically cleansed the entire indigenous population from the islands in order to build a military base there for the US. Naturally enough after this noble exercise, the military base has been given the name Camp Justice. Ah the "white man's burden", eh. :mad:

From wikipedia's article on the Chagos Islands:

'Officially part of the British Indian Ocean Territory, the Chagos were home to the Chagossians for more than a century and a half until the United Kingdom evicted them in the early 1970s in order to allow the United States to build a military base on Diego Garcia, the largest of the Chagos Islands. Since 1971, only the atoll of Diego Garcia is inhabited, and only by military and civilian contracted personnel.
The sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago is being disputed between the UK and Mauritius. The archipelago was split from the Territories of Mauritius prior to Mauritian independence in 1968.'

Other articles:

1) Ilois/Chagossian people

2) Depopulation of Diego Garcia

3) Banished Chagos islanders insist: we are not at point of no return

These wonderful civilisers of humanity just keep getting better. 1973 is not long ago, and the British state in 2012 rules that area and refuses to allow the natives the right to return. If some people here had their way, we'd be left with the impression that the British Empire is something in the distant past. This is yet another example of where it's not.

In 2012 Britain rules 15 territories beyond Britain (and obviously 14 beyond the UK). Most of us have a good idea of the horrors they committed in Kenya in the 1950s, when up to 1 million Kenyans were imprisoned in "enclosed villages" (concentration camps) and some 10,000 Kenyans were illegally executed by the British. What other hidden histories of British foreign policy since WWII are akin to what has happened to the native people in the Chagos islands?

Judgement Day

Interesting post but whatever the rights and wrongs of the depopulation of the British Indian Ocean Territory it was for the greater good of the Western Alliance - and neutral Ireland! Diego Garcia was also busy during the Gulf War and likely to become so again if a war with Iran/Syria gets started - not to mention future problems with China.

Interesting also in that the USA encouraged the British to dispense with its empire - except where it suited them.

If you're looking for another UK possession to kick-off over how about Ascension Island http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascension_Island

who the fug

Ah bless he found something new to hate with.

The interesting bit about Diego Garcia is how a Labour government conspired with Us to do it, hopefully justice will be done soon

Rebelheart

Judgement Day wrote: »

Interesting post but whatever the rights and wrongs of the depopulation of the British Indian Ocean Territory it was for the greater good of the Western Alliance - and neutral Ireland!

Assuming you were not being sarcastic, perhaps you could elaborate on that, JD?

Rebelheart

who the fug wrote: »

The interesting bit about Diego Garcia is how a Labour government conspired with Us to do it

"Us" being whom?

Judgement Day

Rebelheart wrote: »

Assuming you were not being sarcastic, perhaps you could elaborate on that, JD?

Well, I'm a simple soul and in the world I see only two sides - them and us - and you're either with us or against us. WW.2. Allies vs Axis. Cold War NATO vs Warsaw Pact. Gulf War Coalition of the Willing vs Saddam. You get my drift and it probably confirms all you have already deduced from my previous posts. I go with the comment apparently made by US President Franklin D. Roosevelt about Nicaraguan Dictator - Somoza - 'he may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch'. That could equally be applied to George Bush and the like too as far as I'm concerned.

Diego Garcia was/is seen as an important link in the West's military infrastructure and as Ireland's shelters behind NATO/USA etc. that means we 'benefit' from its current status. Believe it or not I'm not a cheer leader for Western military intervention but in the dangerous world we live in, we have to be prepared for any eventuality until such time as common sense takes over with world leaders - don't hold your breath.

who the fug

Rebelheart wrote: »

"Us" being whom?

sorry typo USA, given that Wilson and LBJ were not on the best of terms

who the fug

Judgement Day wrote: »

Well, I'm a simple soul and in the world I see only two sides - them and us - and you're either with us or against us. WW.2. Allies vs Axis. Cold War NATO vs Warsaw Pact. Gulf War Coalition of the Willing vs Saddam. You get my drift and it probably confirms all you have already deduced from my previous posts. I go with the comment apparently made by US President Franklin D. Roosevelt about Nicaraguan Dictator - Somoza - 'he may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch'. That could equally be applied to George Bush and the like too as far as I'm concerned.

Diego Garcia was/is seen as an important link in the West's military infrastructure and as Ireland's shelters behind NATO/USA etc. that means we 'benefit' from its current status. Believe it or not I'm not a cheer leader for Western military intervention but in the dangerous world we live in, we have to be prepared for any eventuality until such time as common sense takes over with world leaders - don't hold your breath.

The problem with this is the legacy we are left with, flooding Cuba with MacDonalds and Coke would be a far more effective way for the US to deal with Castro than the blockade which has helped him over the last 50 years.

The horn of Africa is flooded with guns because of the Cold War,billions were spent on Afghanistan to destroy the USSR, but nothing to rebuild it

The USA would rather back Pol Pot than the Vietnamese.

It is easy to snipe at people with the benefit of history, but I do think that expediency had too high a priority at times

pedroeibar1

Rebelheart wrote: »

Ah the "white man's burden", eh. :mad:

Whatever about the other guff, you are incorrect on 'the white man's burden' - have a listen about one third of the way in on http://www.oldtimeradiodownloads.com/mp3/comedy/goon-show/Goon%20570228%20S07e21%20Insurance%20The%20White%20Mans%20Burden.mp3

tac foley

I'll just mention, in passing, in recent historical order -

1. Shaka - who it is believed killed at least 400,000 other blacks, and re-arranged almost the entire tip of Africa to his liking.

And within the last 40-50 years -

2. Pol Pot - killed about two and a half million of his own people.

3. Idi Amin - same deal, maybe a few less.

4. Rwanda - where ethnic cleansing killed upwards of a million people of different tribes - usually by hand, with a machete.

5. Ongoing in Eritrea et al.

6. Nigeria, also ongoing.

sigh....

tac

jonniebgood1

tac foley wrote: »

I'll just mention, in passing, in recent historical order -

1. Shaka - who it is believed killed at least 400,000 other blacks, and re-arranged almost the entire tip of Africa to his liking.

And within the last 40-50 years -

2. Pol Pot - killed about two and a half million of his own people.

3. Idi Amin - same deal, maybe a few less.

4. Rwanda - where ethnic cleansing killed upwards of a million people of different tribes - usually by hand, with a machete.

5. Ongoing in Eritrea et al.

6. Nigeria, also ongoing.

sigh....

Are you comparing British rule with the above Tac?

If not then what is your point?

tac foley

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Are you comparing British rule with the above Tac?

If not then what is your point?

My point here is the 'ethnic cleansing' means different things to diferent people. As far as I know, not a single islander was hacked to death because he was a different shade or religion.

EDIT - add - Kosovo, Bosnia - Milocevic - 9000 missing moslems? THAT is ethnic cleansing.

tac

ejmaztec

Had the British legal system not been thwarted by Tony Blair's love affair with George W, the islanders would probably have had some redress.

The Americans were/are calling the shots on this one.

The Chagossians' Search for Justice

The Chagossians have turned to the British courts to fight for the right to return to their homeland. In 2000, a British court ruled that the order to evacuate Diego Garcia's inhabitants was invalid, but the court also upheld the island's military status, which permits only personnel authorized by the military to inhabit the island. The Ilois also sued the British government for compensation, but in Oct. 2003 a British judge ruled that although the Chagossians had been treated "shamefully" by the government, their claims were unfounded.
A Further Setback

To further thwart the Chagossians' claims—and as a result of strong pressure from the U.S., which has cited security reasons for keeping the islanders from returning—the British government issued an "Order of Council" in 2004, prohibiting islanders from ever returning to Diego Garcia. This archaic, centuries-old royal prerogative permitted the Blair government to overrule the 2000 High court verdict.
Vindication

But in May 2006, the High Court in London ruled that the Chagossians may in fact return to other Chagossian islands, and offered a withering assessment of the British conduct in the case, calling it "outrageous, unlawful and a breach of accepted moral standards."

"The suggestion that a minister can, through an Order in Council, exile a whole population from a British Overseas Territory and claim he is doing so for the 'peace, order and good government' of the Territory is repugnant."

American Resistance

The Chagossians have accepted that they cannot return to Diego Garcia because of the U.S. airbase, but this new verdict paves the way for the islanders to move elsewhere in the Chagos archipelago, to the Salomon islands and Peros Banhos, which are more than 100 miles from Diego Garcia. The U.S., however, is opposed to anyone other than military personnel and their employees living anywhere in the Chagos archipelago, asserting that security will be compromised. According to a State Department official, Lincoln Bloomfield Jr., allowing civilians in the archipelago could potentially lead to "terrorists infiltrating the islands." Having finally triumphed in a hard-won and lengthy legal battle, the Chagossians now find themselves at loggerheads with the world's superpower.


Read more: Where in the World Is Diego Garcia? — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/spot/dg.html#ixzz2AJRaKPTK

jonniebgood1

tac foley wrote: »

My point here is the 'ethnic cleansing' means different things to diferent people. As far as I know, not a single islander was hacked to death because he was a different shade or religion.

I would not think that you need to 'hack' someone to death to qualify something as ethnic cleansing. The term suggests to me the removal of a group of people from an area against their will.

Ethnic cleansing as a concept has generated considerable controversy. Some critics see little difference between it and genocide. Defenders, however, argue that ethnic cleansing and genocide can be distinguished by the intent of the perpetrator: whereas the primary goal of genocide is the destruction of an ethnic, racial, or religious group, the main purpose of ethnic cleansing is the establishment of ethnically homogeneous lands, which may be achieved by any of a number of methods including genocide.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/194242/ethnic-cleansing

How would you describe what happened the people who formerly inhabited the island?

Judgement Day

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I would not think that you need to 'hack' someone to death to qualify something as ethnic cleansing. The term suggests to me the removal of a group of people from an area against their will.


How would you describe what happened the people who formerly inhabited the island?

Relocation for the greater good - ours - and probably theirs' too.

golden lane

sorry, i can't find any tears for the islanders......i used them all up thinking of the treatment my family suffered from the state sponsored catholic clergy in ireland....

such is life....

tac foley

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I would not think that you need to 'hack' someone to death to qualify something as ethnic cleansing. The term suggests to me the removal of a group of people from an area against their will.

How would you describe what happened the people who formerly inhabited the island?

Forcible re-location.

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that I somehow support or approve of this activity by the British and US governments.

Please rid yourself of this illusion.

To the OP, it was 'ethnic cleansing' by those 'b*st*rd child-murdering British nazis again' - the basis for this week's rant.

I saw the real thing in Bosnia and Kosovo, a couple of place full of mass-graves of men, women and children. I've been to Auschwitz and Buchenwald, where my co-religionists were annihilated, literally by the million.

THAT is ethnic cleansing.

tac

Rebelheart

tac foley wrote: »

My point here is the 'ethnic cleansing' means different things to diferent people. As far as I know, not a single islander was hacked to death because he was a different shade or religion.

EDIT - add - Kosovo, Bosnia - Milocevic - 9000 missing moslems? THAT is ethnic cleansing.

tac

I'll tell you what, tac: as a self-confessed member of the British armed forces, perhaps you should just write your own dictionary with your own idiosyncratic self-serving definitions of words in the English language?

I'll go with Merriman-Webster:

ethnic cleansing 
noun
the elimination of an unwanted ethnic group or groups from a society, as by genocide or forced emigration.


The Oxford English Dictionary:

ethnic cleansing 
noun
[mass noun]
the mass expulsion or killing of members of one ethnic or religious group in an area by those of another.
The same mechanism is involved in all pogroms, all ethnic cleansing, and all wars."


It would be nice if you and the rest of the apologists for British state involvement in lands beyond Britain could at least look up the conventional meaning of words before responding with such embarrassingly uninformed dross as a gut reaction to any criticism of British state interference in those foreign places.

Rebelheart

tac foley wrote: »

To the OP, it was 'ethnic cleansing' by those 'b*st*rd child-murdering British nazis again' - the basis for this week's rant.

Is this meant to be some obtuse tactic to detract from the British state's historically verifiable ethnic cleansing of a people from their homeland between 1968 and 1973? Quite pathetic.

No doubt you're one of those people who gets on his high horse about "terrorism" any time a mercenary of the British state is killed fighting natives in lands beyond Britain. "My tribe, right or wrong". British nationalism at its most blinkered, benighted and repellent.

Rebelheart

golden lane wrote: »

sorry, i can't find any tears for the islanders......i used them all up thinking of the treatment my family suffered from the state sponsored catholic clergy in ireland....

such is life....

Interesting twist, utterly fallacious of course because from your posts so far it is clear you're a hardline British nationalist.

Posts like this one:

golden lane wrote: »

they want the british out of norther ireland........i am the british, it is my country...

ejmaztec

Rebelheart wrote: »

Interesting twist, utterly fallacious of course because from your posts so far it is clear you're a hardline British nationalist.

Posts like this one:

I assumed that he was having an irrelevant dig at religion, as seems to be the thing on Boards these days.

golden lane

Rebelheart wrote: »

Interesting twist, utterly fallacious of course because from your posts so far it is clear you're a hardline British nationalist.

Posts like this one:

no idea where you are from........but if you are from dublin, you may guess where i am from.......there is a clue in the name.....

and, i have no wish to hide the truth.....any truth, unlike you of course......

i also hope that you are not part of that vile religeous organisation.....that i mentioned...

tac foley

Rebelheart wrote: »

I'll tell you what, tac: as a self-confessed member of the British armed forces,

Yup, thirty-three years service, and proud of every minute.:D

Self-confessed' - what a strange word to use in that context. I've never denied it.

Still and all, Mr Rebelheart, I can see that you are up for a p!ssing match at my expense here.

You're not going to get it.:P

I'm off to get my lunch now, have a nice gnash and seethe.;)

Best wishes from 148 km SSW of Ottawa.

tac

Fratton Fred

How cam it be ethnic cleansing when no distinction was made of the ethnicity of those displaced?

It was a compulsory purchase of the island. Civilian cleansing maybe, but mot ethnic.

Benny_Cake

Fratton Fred wrote: »

How cam it be ethnic cleansing when no distinction was made of the ethnicity of those displaced?

It was a compulsory purchase of the island. Civilian cleansing maybe, but mot ethnic.

Forced expulsion would probably be more accurate.

The expulsion of the Chagossians is a shameful episode in modern British history and hopefully they will see justice soon. That said, it's a pity to see their plight being used as an excuse for generalised Brit-bashing.

jonniebgood1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

How cam it be ethnic cleansing when no distinction was made of the ethnicity of those displaced?

It was a compulsory purchase of the island. Civilian cleansing maybe, but mot ethnic.

Were the islanders not all from the same ethnic background and then all displaced?

How can it be a compulsory purchase!!! Please tell me you have a source to back up what seems a rather strange explanation of these events. It sounds like a downplaying of what happened to discribe it as such.

Fratton Fred

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Were the islanders not all from the same ethnic background and then all displaced?

How can it be a compulsory purchase!!! Please tell me you have a source to back up what seems a rather strange explanation of these events. It sounds like a downplaying of what happened to discribe it as such.

Their ethnic background was irrelevant, it is a complete red herring. The sole reason for their expulsion was to build a military base on their land, hence my referring to it as a compulsory purchase.

They were treated badly, but their ethnicity played on part in it, only their misfortune to own land on islands considered strategically important.

It's mot downplaying it, that is the reality.

Iwannahurl

John Pilger made an excellent documentary on this several years ago.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3667764379758632511

Rebelheart

Benny_Cake wrote: »

The expulsion of the Chagossians is a shameful episode in modern British history and hopefully they will see justice soon. That said, it's a pity to see their plight being used as an excuse for generalised Brit-bashing.

I see. So specifically condemning British imperialist claims and actions in lands beyond Britain is "generalised Brit-bashing"? Is English your first language, or is your thought process really as sloppy as your understanding of that language evidently is?

Rebelheart

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Their ethnic background was irrelevant, it is a complete red herring. The sole reason for their expulsion was to build a military base on their land, hence my referring to it as a compulsory purchase.

Excellent, old bean. I look forward to thousands of white English Protestants being forcibly expelled by the British military from their homelands in Kent or Sussex to make way for the latest British political aim (and we won't mention that massive "famine" of white English Protestants between 1845-51). Scots, Paddies or Chagossians - that's a different story.

Rebelheart

If even the rightwing British writer Christopher Hitchens had no problem calling what happened to the Chagossians "ethnic cleansing", it just goes to show how in their blind "my country right or wrong" defence of all British imperialism the rightwing British here are out of touch with their own tribe.