Vol. 574 No. 3
7 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the EU position in relation to the demand of the citizens of the Chagos archipelago for the right of return to their homeland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26704/03]
The demand of the Chagossian natives to return to the Chagos archipelago is a complex issue which involves competing sovereignty claims. The Chagos islanders' right of return and claims for compensation are the subject of legal proceedings in both the UK and USA. I understand that although the Chagos islanders' claims for compensation and immediate return were dismissed recently in the High Court in Britain, this verdict may be appealed.
The Government will continue to monitor the situation of the Chagossian archipelago and the claims of the Chagos islanders. We wish to see the issue resolved through an agreement by all concerned parties. The EU has not addressed the issue of the demands of the Chagos islanders for the right of return to their homeland.
This is an appropriate matter for the European Union to address since Britain is a member state. This has been one of the most outrageous abuses of decolonisation. Islands which had been occupied for several generations were described as uninhabited. They became, in effect, terra nuova and the allegedly unoccupied land was sold to become a military base. The people involved were reduced to degradation in Mauritius, which is what the court case was about. People with British passports were denied the right to return to their homeland. It is a most appropriate matter to raise with the European Union.
The issue of sovereignty is an appropriate matter to refer to the United Nations committee on decolonisation. As the Minister will be aware, the issue arose in 1965. In 1974, the last of the islanders was dragged off the islands to make room for a military base. The base employs over 1,000 people, none of whom can, by direction, be from the Chagos people. They used their British passports to go to the UK to take a case, but because their numbers are so few, they tend to be forgotten. An outrageous abuse of international law has taken place.
There is no dispute about sovereignty because Britain was warned by the UN decolonisation committee in 1965 that it would be in breach of international law if it described the islands as unoccupied. It forced the breach and broke the law. It signed a lease and as late as 1990 the Government of the United States of America said it refused to leave because the islands might be used by subversives and international terrorists. The islanders were not absorbed into the population of Mauritius where they were discriminated against and they are now living like vagrants in a British city.
The number of people involved may be small, but the issue is enormous in terms of what it tells one about those countries with colonial pasts which are now fellow members of the European Union. This issue besmirches the European Union and the British Government should be told that. The United Nations committee should be asked to resume an interest in the issue.
I will take the Deputy's comments into consideration. I do not in any way claim to be an expert in this area. Discussions are continuing between the Governments of Mauritius and the UK on the status of this archipelago and I encourage both sides to continue these, with a view to reaching an agreed solution on the fate of the islanders. One of the main reasons there has been a failure to come up with a Common Position within the EU is probably that legal actions have been taking place. If it was ever raised, I never heard anyone mention it or saw documentation in that regard in my time on the General Affairs Council.
We might address it during the Presidency.
I will endeavour to address it during the Presidency but I will not make a solemn commitment yet.
While the question asked what the EU's position is in this regard, I am interested in the Government's position, since it does not always have to be tied with that of the EU. This case is a classic one of an abused colony, if there is such thing as a colony which has not been abused. The people in the archipelago are looking for compensation for their being hoodwinked, starved, terrorised, bribed and evicted, and the right to return to their homeland. The conflict is that, in contravention to the Indian Ocean zone of peace declaration, there is a US nuclear military base on Diego Garcia. There have been calls for the base to be stood down and forces withdrawn because the threat against which they were placed there no longer exists. Therefore, it should be returned to the people to whom it belonged in the first instance.
I outlined the Government's position in this regard to the Deputy. This archipelago lies in the Indian Ocean, comprising 65 small islands which cover an area of 60 sq. km., the largest of which is Diego Garcia – the site of a major US military air base. I understand that, in a ruling in November 2000, the English High Court upheld the Chagossian natives' right to return and stated that there was no source of lawful authority to justify the removal of the islanders. The ruling also granted the islanders British citizenship. Following this ruling, the British Foreign Secretary, Mr. Robin Cook, agreed to a feasibility study to facilitate the return of the islanders and, following that study, the assessment of the UK Government was that the return of all Chagossian natives on a long-term basis was not feasible and that the viability of return is complicated by the US Diego Garcia base and the authorisation which would be required for habitation of the island.
As I stated, discussions are continuing between the Governments of Mauritius and the UK in order to seek a resolution of the matter. A recent decision could be under appeal. There is no common EU position and I have outlined the Irish position as best I can.
