It was recently reported that a referendum on the Malvinas (Falkland) Islands resulted in an unsurprising outcome: all but three of the islanders voted to remain “British” (referendum). It was not reported how many of the islanders were actually born in Britain or have any other legitimate claim to call themselves British.
It was equally unsurprising to learn that the British government supports the claim of the islanders. What is less clear is why; and who was behind the holding of this referendum, and why it was held.
Possibly the only bit of good to come out of the event known as the Falklands War was the superb example it provided of the cynicism of government in general and of the British government in particular. On 14th April 1982, twelve days after the war had started, Margaret Thatcher was voted the worst prime minister in British history, according to a poll in The Times – due no doubt to the three years of odious domestic policies by her government (Thatcher poll - see page 21 ). By the end of the war, a mere couple of months later, and following the British victory, her fortunes had reversed and her popularity at the polls had more than doubled (“Shock Doctrine” by Naomi Klein – p.138).
Not that Thatcher was the only politician to use the Malvinas as a distraction from her disastrous domestic policies. In Argentina General Galtieri, plagued by union unrest as a consequence of how he was handling the country’s dire economic situation (to which Britain actively contributed) saw an opportunity to divert the anger of his people towards the British. As everyone knows, he lost the war he started; Thatcher won. The price of their distraction politics: Galtieri’s instant political demise; and a further eight long, long years of Thatcher’s reign and, oh yes, I almost forgot, about a thousand dead soldiers and several thousand devastated families.
So the recent referendum in the Malvinas is moderately interesting. What’s it all about? Our trusted leaders would tell us it’s all about democracy and respecting the rights of the islanders to self-determination. Their concern would be truly touching... if it could be believed. But there are a few difficulties:
1. If we’re so concerned about respecting the rights of distant islanders to be British, if that’s what they want, what about the Chagos Islanders? The Chagossians have at least as much right to call themselves British as the people living in the Malvinas, but somehow their decades-long campaign to be allowed to return to the island paradise from which they were forcibly evicted in order to turn it into a monstrous US military base, is routinely rejected by the British government – despite various British court rulings in favour of the Chagossians (Chagossians). Fortunately (for Whitehall) the Chagossians happen to have brown skins, the people living in Malvinas are mostly white. Admittedly this is only a minor point, as the British government is truly colour blind in some matters and has a long and impressive history of brutality against its own white-skinned people too; but nevertheless, British TV audiences probably identify more with the distress of white-skinned people than the misery of those with dark skins which, after all, is pretty routine – its’ all very sad, obviously, but... ho hum, let’s watch football instead.
2. It costs the British taxpayer at least £61m a year to keep a military garrison on the Malvinas (there are other costs to the taxpayer too, such as maintaining a governor and his staff). That means that with a population of a mere 2,800 people, almost £22,000 a year is being spent on each occupant of the Malvinas. (costs) If these people have such a desperate desire to be British, it would make far more economic sense, in these times of “austerity”, to move them all to England, accommodate them, and pay each and every one of them an Income Support allowance. Possibly some of them would prefer to work and not claim Income Support – reducing the cost even more.
Another factor that’s excluded from our trusted leaders’ touching concern for democracy is that it’s reported that vast oil reserves may exist in the immediate vicinity of the Malvinas. It’s also overlooked that the islands are very conveniently located for the South Atlantic shipping lanes, and are an ideal base for the Royal Navy, experts in the shameful art of sanctions enforcement. The Malvinas are also extremely useful relative to the Antarctic – where the next great land-grabs are well and truly underway. These points are moderately well known, but it would be nice if our trusted leaders openly acknowledged their importance. It would be nice if, when asked about it by the toothless representatives of the corporate media, our trusted leaders openly admitted they want the Malvinas for its strategic importance to our “defence” forces, and because the place might be sitting on top of massive oil reserves their corporate bosses want to control. But no, they never say that, they tell us instead they’re supporting the democratic wishes of Malvinas Islanders to determine their own future (providing, obviously, they make the right choice). Well I say two cheers for democracy.
Source:
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"http://www.freedemocrats.co.uk/pages/comment.asp"
linktext was:"http://www.freedemocrats.co.uk/pages/comment.asp"
====================================
topic title: Two Cheers for Democracy
2 posts
• Page 1 of 1
-
Alanarchy
Posts 0 Alanarchy
#2
This is a connected report about the Chagossian community, who in 1966 found themselves in the way of two global superpowers who sought to turn the Chagos islands into a military base for strategic purposes at the height of the cold war.
Chagos and the Struggle Against British Neocolonialism by Clency Lebrasse
Imagine being expelled from your homes. Dumped into the slums of a foreign land and spending over forty years fighting for the right to return to your homeland.
This is the tragic tale of the Chagossian community, who in 1966 found themselves in the way of two global superpowers who sought to turn the Chagos islands into a military base for strategic purposes at the height of the cold war. The solution to their presence was so despicable, so inhumane and so cruel that I have spent the last nine years of my life working to help the Chagossians overturn this grave injustice.
Following the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 the U.S. government enlisted the assistance of her British allies to source a base where they would be able to monitor the activities of what was then the U.S.S.R. Prime Minister Harold Wilson recommended the use of the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean, despite the fact that they were at the time home to a population of 2,000 people. What followed was the forcible removal and resettlement of the Chagossians to slums and ghettos in nearby Mauritius and the Seychelles. Since the early seventies the Islands have served as a US military base. The base is regarded as “the jewel in the crown” for the US military.
I have written extensively about the background to the plight of the Chagossian community. It is a modern day example of colonial savagery coupled with racist and unsavoury attitudes towards the islanders; a UK foreign office official once described them as a “few Tarzans or men Fridays.”
Colonialism today
The Islands are officially known as the British Indian Ocean Overseas Territory (BIOT). They form part of a collection of overseas territories which fall under British jurisdiction but are not part of the United Kingdom. There are many such territories all over the world. The best known of which, the Falklands, were the subject of a war three decades ago between Britain and Argentina.
There are a lot of contrasts between the Chagos Islands and the Falkland Islands. Britain expelled the Chagossian community but sent a taskforce to protect the Falklands community. The war of 1982 occurred in the same year as the shameful settlement which Britain offered to the exiled (and illiterate!) Chagossians who were tricked into signing away claims to their homeland. Britain continues to protest that the Falklanders deserve self determination, but when it comes to the Chagossians 10 of the 30 articles of the UN universal declaration of human rights are breached day by day, who enjoy no self determination whatsoever.
The Falklanders recently held a referendum to decide on the future of their islands, and as expected almost unanimously backed the existing arrangements to continue. Chagossian supporters have been quick to point out that the Chagossian community have been denied this right repeatedly. Many argue that the only difference between the two sets of populations is the colour of the skin of those involved. The Falklanders are white while the Chagossians are black.
But the British government will point out that the Chagossians have already been consulted and that an election administered by the Electoral Reform Services has already been conducted. Technically they are right, but as is often the case with the Foreign Office, there is more to this than meets the eye. When it comes to dirty tricks, nobody does it better.
Last December the legal battles reached a pivotal stage when the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg finally ruled on the islanders’ case. The court decided that the action was inadmissible due to compensation being granted to some Chagossians in 1982. The Foreign Office’s official response to the ruling was that it would “take stock” of the ruling and meet with Chagossians in due course. This was welcomed by the community, a sign that perhaps the government may be ready to engage with the islanders.
Sadly as has been common since the 1960s, nothing which originates from the Foreign Office regarding this issue can ever be regarded as sincere.
The overwhelming majority of Chagossians fight on a platform for a right of return and an end to British rule on the islands. However there is one small faction, which offers a contrasting perspective. The Diego Garcia Society (DGS) are led by Allen Vincatassin and where they differ from other Chagossian groups is that they want the islands to remain British. This difference is best illustrated in their adoption of the official BIOT flag as their own, as opposed to every other Chagossian group which adopts the more widely recognised Chagossian flag as the symbol of their struggle for justice.
There is nothing wrong with Vincatassin and the DGS offering an alternative view on the future of the Chagos Islands. Their arguments should be welcomed as much as anyone else’s. It is just that their input should be viewed in the context of which it is made: as a marginalised fringe faction which does not represent the majority of the will of the Chagossian community. They add to the debate, and their views should be registered, but assessed on the basis that they are the smallest of the groups. They have a voice, but are not THE voice.
Democratic Deficit
Of course the British government is never one to miss a trick. They identified very quickly that Vincatassin represented a trophy to bolster their own agenda. Here was a group of Chagossians who wanted to maintain the status quo. For the Foreign Office this was a gift from the heavens.
Vincatassin was invited by the Foreign Office to conduct an election overseen by the Electoral Reform Services and was only open to all members of the DGS. There are over 2,000 Chagossians based in the UK. Vincatassin secured just 122 votes. That’s around 6% of UK based Chagossians, which in a British election normally usually means you breathe a sigh of relief as you have saved the deposit by posting over 5%!
But Vincatassin got far more than his deposit back.
He was awarded the title of “provisional President of Diego Garcia and the Chagos Islands”. It was more than simply a meaningless honour. It provided him with unrivalled access to people at the very heart of the Foreign Office and the British government. Meetings with the then Foreign Secretary David Miliband were to be a regular feature of the elevation of Vincatassin from a marginalised fringe faction leader to the leader in waiting of the Chagossian community as a whole.
When the British government wanted to make good its promise of “taking stock” and meeting with the Chagossian community, they had a willing and able partner to legitimise their charade. Vincatassin was only too happy to meet with Mark Simmonds from the Foreign Office to discuss the implications of the Strasbourg ruling. Simmonds and the Foreign Office knew Vincatassin would merrily dance to their music and in doing so enabled the Foreign Office to respond to critics that they are indeed meeting and interacting with Chagossians.
At the time of writing, the leader of the largest Chagossian group Olivier Bancoult has still to be invited for talks. The same applies for anyone else from his organisation, the Chagos Refugee Group. That this should be the case merely supports the theory that the British government will only engage with Chagossians who reinforce its own hideous agenda. Chagossians who support British government policy are rewarded with contentious titles and access to the corridors of power which will ultimately decide on the future of the islands.
Those who oppose the British government’s policy are ostracised, excluded and alienated. That they happen to represent the overwhelming majority of Chagossian opinion is completely unacceptable. The Foreign Office cannot pick and choose who they will work with based on this subjective test.
Vincatassin has a role to play in the future of the Chagos Islands. But the role he must fulfil must be aligned to the position he occupies: as the leader of the smallest group of Chagossians. To suddenly distort the marginalised voice as being representative of the wider community is manipulation of the highest order and must not be tolerated.
Source:
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"http://anticapitalists.org/2013/03/14/chagos-british-colonialism/"
linktext was:"http://anticapitalists.org/2013/03/14/c ... lonialism/"
====================================
Heck, he's so right! The British government is never one to miss a trick. Anybody who trusts them needs their brains tested.
Chagos and the Struggle Against British Neocolonialism by Clency Lebrasse
Imagine being expelled from your homes. Dumped into the slums of a foreign land and spending over forty years fighting for the right to return to your homeland.
This is the tragic tale of the Chagossian community, who in 1966 found themselves in the way of two global superpowers who sought to turn the Chagos islands into a military base for strategic purposes at the height of the cold war. The solution to their presence was so despicable, so inhumane and so cruel that I have spent the last nine years of my life working to help the Chagossians overturn this grave injustice.
Following the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 the U.S. government enlisted the assistance of her British allies to source a base where they would be able to monitor the activities of what was then the U.S.S.R. Prime Minister Harold Wilson recommended the use of the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean, despite the fact that they were at the time home to a population of 2,000 people. What followed was the forcible removal and resettlement of the Chagossians to slums and ghettos in nearby Mauritius and the Seychelles. Since the early seventies the Islands have served as a US military base. The base is regarded as “the jewel in the crown” for the US military.
I have written extensively about the background to the plight of the Chagossian community. It is a modern day example of colonial savagery coupled with racist and unsavoury attitudes towards the islanders; a UK foreign office official once described them as a “few Tarzans or men Fridays.”
Colonialism today
The Islands are officially known as the British Indian Ocean Overseas Territory (BIOT). They form part of a collection of overseas territories which fall under British jurisdiction but are not part of the United Kingdom. There are many such territories all over the world. The best known of which, the Falklands, were the subject of a war three decades ago between Britain and Argentina.
There are a lot of contrasts between the Chagos Islands and the Falkland Islands. Britain expelled the Chagossian community but sent a taskforce to protect the Falklands community. The war of 1982 occurred in the same year as the shameful settlement which Britain offered to the exiled (and illiterate!) Chagossians who were tricked into signing away claims to their homeland. Britain continues to protest that the Falklanders deserve self determination, but when it comes to the Chagossians 10 of the 30 articles of the UN universal declaration of human rights are breached day by day, who enjoy no self determination whatsoever.
The Falklanders recently held a referendum to decide on the future of their islands, and as expected almost unanimously backed the existing arrangements to continue. Chagossian supporters have been quick to point out that the Chagossian community have been denied this right repeatedly. Many argue that the only difference between the two sets of populations is the colour of the skin of those involved. The Falklanders are white while the Chagossians are black.
But the British government will point out that the Chagossians have already been consulted and that an election administered by the Electoral Reform Services has already been conducted. Technically they are right, but as is often the case with the Foreign Office, there is more to this than meets the eye. When it comes to dirty tricks, nobody does it better.
Last December the legal battles reached a pivotal stage when the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg finally ruled on the islanders’ case. The court decided that the action was inadmissible due to compensation being granted to some Chagossians in 1982. The Foreign Office’s official response to the ruling was that it would “take stock” of the ruling and meet with Chagossians in due course. This was welcomed by the community, a sign that perhaps the government may be ready to engage with the islanders.
Sadly as has been common since the 1960s, nothing which originates from the Foreign Office regarding this issue can ever be regarded as sincere.
The overwhelming majority of Chagossians fight on a platform for a right of return and an end to British rule on the islands. However there is one small faction, which offers a contrasting perspective. The Diego Garcia Society (DGS) are led by Allen Vincatassin and where they differ from other Chagossian groups is that they want the islands to remain British. This difference is best illustrated in their adoption of the official BIOT flag as their own, as opposed to every other Chagossian group which adopts the more widely recognised Chagossian flag as the symbol of their struggle for justice.
There is nothing wrong with Vincatassin and the DGS offering an alternative view on the future of the Chagos Islands. Their arguments should be welcomed as much as anyone else’s. It is just that their input should be viewed in the context of which it is made: as a marginalised fringe faction which does not represent the majority of the will of the Chagossian community. They add to the debate, and their views should be registered, but assessed on the basis that they are the smallest of the groups. They have a voice, but are not THE voice.
Democratic Deficit
Of course the British government is never one to miss a trick. They identified very quickly that Vincatassin represented a trophy to bolster their own agenda. Here was a group of Chagossians who wanted to maintain the status quo. For the Foreign Office this was a gift from the heavens.
Vincatassin was invited by the Foreign Office to conduct an election overseen by the Electoral Reform Services and was only open to all members of the DGS. There are over 2,000 Chagossians based in the UK. Vincatassin secured just 122 votes. That’s around 6% of UK based Chagossians, which in a British election normally usually means you breathe a sigh of relief as you have saved the deposit by posting over 5%!
But Vincatassin got far more than his deposit back.
He was awarded the title of “provisional President of Diego Garcia and the Chagos Islands”. It was more than simply a meaningless honour. It provided him with unrivalled access to people at the very heart of the Foreign Office and the British government. Meetings with the then Foreign Secretary David Miliband were to be a regular feature of the elevation of Vincatassin from a marginalised fringe faction leader to the leader in waiting of the Chagossian community as a whole.
When the British government wanted to make good its promise of “taking stock” and meeting with the Chagossian community, they had a willing and able partner to legitimise their charade. Vincatassin was only too happy to meet with Mark Simmonds from the Foreign Office to discuss the implications of the Strasbourg ruling. Simmonds and the Foreign Office knew Vincatassin would merrily dance to their music and in doing so enabled the Foreign Office to respond to critics that they are indeed meeting and interacting with Chagossians.
At the time of writing, the leader of the largest Chagossian group Olivier Bancoult has still to be invited for talks. The same applies for anyone else from his organisation, the Chagos Refugee Group. That this should be the case merely supports the theory that the British government will only engage with Chagossians who reinforce its own hideous agenda. Chagossians who support British government policy are rewarded with contentious titles and access to the corridors of power which will ultimately decide on the future of the islands.
Those who oppose the British government’s policy are ostracised, excluded and alienated. That they happen to represent the overwhelming majority of Chagossian opinion is completely unacceptable. The Foreign Office cannot pick and choose who they will work with based on this subjective test.
Vincatassin has a role to play in the future of the Chagos Islands. But the role he must fulfil must be aligned to the position he occupies: as the leader of the smallest group of Chagossians. To suddenly distort the marginalised voice as being representative of the wider community is manipulation of the highest order and must not be tolerated.
Source:
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"http://anticapitalists.org/2013/03/14/chagos-british-colonialism/"
linktext was:"http://anticapitalists.org/2013/03/14/c ... lonialism/"
====================================
Heck, he's so right! The British government is never one to miss a trick. Anybody who trusts them needs their brains tested.