The Government Cover-up Continues
Published by: Richard Dunne - 18 December 2020
The Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) Cover-up
The Redacted Document
Government documents released to the National Archives dating from 1982 reveal that the FCO continues to attempt to cover-up what really happened when it forcibly removed the Chagossians (formerly known as the Ilois) from their islands.
A brief for Government Ministers dated 11 October 1982 written by the BIOT Commissioner, Mr Nigel Wenban-Smith, has been redacted on its release to the National Archives. Sensitive parts are blanked out and will not be released until at least 1 January 2023.
The Brief was written at the time that Britain had defended the Falkland Islands and protected the islanders right to self-determination against Argentinian aggression during the 1982 Falklands War. A report by the Minority Rights Group entitled "Diego Garcia: a contrast to the Falklands " had recently been published and was highly critical of the treatment of the Chagossians. Debates and questions were being raised in Parliament.
The Brief described the "Problem" facing the Government:
"How best to refute the charge of inconsistency in successive British Governments' handling of the Ilois as compared with the Falkland Islanders. This comparison has brought in train calls for an enquiry into the circumstances surrounding the removal of the Ilois from the Chagos Archipelago and has given rise to questions about their treatment and right to return to the Islands."
The Brief advised Ministers:
To respond that the two communities (Falkland Islanders and Chagossians) were fundamentally different in character.
That for the Chagossians the issue of self-determination does not arise (advising however that this was better left unsaid)
To resist the calls for an enquiry
To insist that there is no immediate possibility of the Chagossians returning to BIOT
To insist that the treatment of the Chagossians had been reasonable
Much of the critical arguments to support this advice are redacted in this document. Click here to read this: REDACTED DOCUMENT
Part of the redacted document
Note: I use the term "forcibly removed" above as adopted by the International Court of Justice in its Advisory Opinion. The FCDO was asked in a Parliamentary Question on 16 December 2020 if it agreed with the use of this term. Lord Ahmed, Minister of State for the Commonwealth and United Nations, was understandably reluctant to agree given that forcible removal is now a crime against humanity under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court :
Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office: British Indian Ocean Territory - Crimes against Humanity (HL11106)
Baroness Whitaker (Labour, Life peer)
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Sugg on 18 November (HL10143), whether they accept the description used by the International Court of Justice in its Advisory Opinion of 25 February 2019 Legal Consequences of the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 that Chagossians were "forcibly removed" by the UK between 1967 and 1973.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Conservative, Life peer)
The UK Government has expressed sincere regret about the manner in which Chagossians were removed from BIOT in the 1960s and 1970s. In its Written Statement to the ICJ, the UK accepted that the way that Chagossians were treated was wrong and that there was a callous disregard for their interests. However, the UK did not characterise their treatment in the same terms as those used in the Advisory Opinion.
The same document, unredacted (the highlighting is in the original)
An Unredacted Version is discovered
So what do these sensitive parts of the Ministerial Brief contain?
The answer can be found in a copy of the document from other files released to the National Archives which accidentally has escaped Foreign Office censorship which now allows us to read what has been hidden from our view.
The BIOT Commissioner advises his Minister that:
"We cannot afford to come clean about the motives for removing the inhabitants of the Chagos. In fact, there were three broad considerations involved. First and crucially, they posed a potential political problem: once BIOT had been constituted, and so long as the Ilois, irrespective of their precise legal status, remained there, the UK could have had some difficulty in denying its Charter obligation to report annually on their progress towards self-government, with consequent opportunities for intervention and mischief-making by member states of the UN. .................... Third, ,there was the belief that the United States would prefer to have the Islands uninhabited."
Then he goes on to point out that the deception about the migratory contract worker status of the Chagossians which was used to mislead the United Nations was entirely false, telling the Minister that:
"It is true that the Ilois were brought to and remained on the Islands purely on the basis of their contracts with the plantation owners. Nevertheless, this line has a snag in that its factual basis is weak. A study of earlier papers suggests that this categorisation resulted from the presence of quite a high proportion of temporary workers from the Seychelles and a belief, which later proved to be unfounded, that not more than 100 of the 1000 odd inhabitants of the Chagos in the mid 1960s were second generation. Further investigation showed the number of non-migrants to be 432: Diego Garcia was their homeland with all that entails."
Addressing the issue of self-determination and why the Falkland Islanders human rights were recognised whilst that of the Chagossians ignored, Mr Wenban-Smith first presents his argument on how the two populations could be distinguished. but then acknowledges that:
" The main weakness of this distinction is that it is circumstantial and bears only to a limited extent on the issue of consultation of the Islanders' wishes".
After presenting alternative justifications, he then admits that "But all these arguments are politically controversial; and [the argument that defence security has a higher priority over human rights] is difficult to use in the absence of any consultation with the local inhabitants."
Click here to see the unredacted document (the redactions have been highlighted to aid comparison with the redacted version above): THE UNREDACTED DOCUMENT
What conclusions can we draw from these revelations?
Firstly, that in 1982 the Foreign Office knew full well, right up to Ministerial level, that it had deceived the United Nations, the Chagossians, and the public about what had happened back in the 1960s and 70s. Worse that it was certainly not going to "come clean" about any of this in 1982 and very much worse, it still does not want the truth to be known. It has only been caught out by its own deviousness and insouciance, or perhaps the FCO censors were unsettled by what they were having to do and wished the truth to emerge.
Note: In fairness to Mr Wenban-Smith, now retired from the Foreign Office, it is unlikely that he was expressing his own personal views in the Ministerial Briefing and we should assume that he was simply toeing the official line which the BIOT Commissioner would have been expected to do. After retirement he was Chair of the Chagos Conservation Trust (CCT) for several years. The CCT has never overtly declared any support for Chagossians to return to their homeland and was implemental in promoting the Marine Protected Area in the Chagos which the FCO saw as a means to help prevent resettlement. He has also co-written a book "Chagos: A history" which mainly covers the period before 1965 when the UK detached the islands from Mauritius (see History )
About the Author:
Richard Dunne was at the time of the Falklands War in 1982 serving as an Officer in the Royal Navy. For the last 10 years he has researched the history of the Chagos Islands and has assisted several legal actions against the Foreign and Commonwealth Office concerning its treatment of the Chagossians. He visited Diego Garcia in 1979. See Website background for more details.
Page last updated: 21 December 2020