United States Prefers Continued Exile of Islanders

The United States has supported a Marine Conservation Plan they feel may be the best way to keep the expelled islanders of the Chagos from returning to their homes.

The islanders were illegally removed from their homes forty years ago to make way for the creation of the US Base built on Diego Garcia. [Chagos Island exiles win right to return home, May 2007 The Telegraph; Chagos exiles 'cannot return']

The British Government (UK) and its Monarchy have been fighting on behalf of the United States to keep the Chagossians from returning to the islands, employing a number of schemes to support their efforts.

Most recently, they have thrown the environment into the fray; loading and locking it as a weapon, "blaming Chagossians for damaging the islands before their expulsion," and raising it as a bulwark for defense, "claiming the Chagossians would destroy the environment if they re-settled."

Yet, when boiled down, the Governments of the US and the UK are hiding their Security concerns under the skirts of the Environment.

On behalf of security issues*, using environmental good will as a screen, a double cross system was floated to ensure the islanders could not return permanently even if they won their case in the European Court of Human Rights.

Publicly, the Chagossians were told that their return was blocked on one hand for economic reasons (the UK Government did not want to further support the islanders in an effort to resettle) and on the other, they were told that if they won the right to return then the environmental conservation plan would be "adjusted to accommodate them".

However, US State Department Cables in May 2009 Show Otherwise

US Embassy London:
...
Roberts stated that, according to the UK Government's current thinking on an environmental reserve, there would be “no human footprints” or “Man Fridays” on the Chagos' uninhabited islands.

He asserted that establishing a marine park would, in effect, put to rest the resettlement claims of the archipelago’s former residents [the Chagossians].

Roberts stated that the UK’s “environmental lobby is far more powerful than the Chagossians’ advocates.”
...

[The US Officials state their concern that the Marine Preserve Plan may not ensure the uninhabited state of the islands:]

We [the US London Embassy Diplomats] do not doubt the current government's [UK Government] resolve to prevent the resettlement of the islands' former inhabitants.... We are not as optimistic as the UK-Foreign Commonwealth Office, however, that the Conservative Party would oppose a right of return for the Chagossians.

Indeed, Parliamentarian Keith Simpson, the Conservatives' Shadow Minister of Foreign Affairs, stated in the April parliamentary debate that Her Majesty's Government "should take into account what I suspect is the All-Party view that the rights of the Chagossian people should be recognized, and that there should at the very least be a timetable for the return of those people at least to the outer islands of the Chagos, if not the inner islands."

[The US Officials summarize:]

We [the US] feel that establishing a marine reserve might, indeed, as the UK-Foreign Commonwealth Office stated, be the most effective long-term way to prevent any of the Chagos Islands' former inhabitants or their descendants from resettling in the BIOT.
end cable

See complete Cable text at:

http://chagosrefugeesgroup.net/blog/?p=584

And in the Guardian

And the original from Wikileaks

Regarding the Military as Environmental Stewards

The idea of the "Military Sanctuary Effect" was employed to counter the paradoxical situation of the Military's own Environmental Footprint in the islands and to bolster the US Military's support for the Marnie Protected Area.

Environmental Stewards? Yes... and No...

It can be boiled down to this very simple reality:
Exclude Humans and "Nature" takes over.
The Shadow Effect: create a shadow of a Hawk and the Rabbits don't come and eat the lettuce.
Put a fence around it, and you have a preserve.

It's not rocket science.

And the question:
"When it comes to the environment (apart from its effect on human rights), are military operations among the most destructive activities known to mankind?"

• First, which military are we talking about?

There are certainly some that do a better job than others. Some must be considered to be dismal.

• Second, which era are we talking about?

In the past ten or twenty years, the US has been progressively getting better at environmental awareness, even among coral reef resources. Whether that is by pulling teeth and dragging feet or eagerly responding to suggestions (new regulations), there is one thing about the military: if there is a directive, they follow it without question once it is in place (there are of course exceptions) even turning it to their benefit if there is a chance (ie., good PR, exclusion of civilian activities, etc.). That is not to say that the military are environmentalists. They are not. The military mission and the perception of national security is the bottom line (eg., the use of harmful sonar despite the impact to many marine mammals and certain fish species). The environment serves at the pleasure of the military. It is the balancing of the urgency of the military mission and its perception of security risks with environmental concerns that is the trick.

• Third, which military operations are we talking about?

Of course, active war zones and battlefields (wherever they are) are rather destructive. But other operations run the gamut from "pristine-looking" tracts that act as nature preserves to shattered bombing ranges in various habitats (including coral reefs). Within that spectrum, there are industrial type impacts, residential related impacts, and a variety of other training and operational impacts (as stated above, more recent regulations have been improving environmental behavior - cutting edge in some cases, lacking in others).

Examples

Here are examples from my own personal experiences (I won't go into others such as the Nuclear Bomb Tests in the Pacific and the deserts of the US):

In Vieques, Puerto Rico the bombing range there has obliterated a coral reef in a bay and a seagrass bed in another was impacted to a degree. The terrestrial habitat was severely damaged of course (it was a bombing range!). Other training activities impacted other habitats to varying lesser degrees. The excluded part of the island acted somewhat as a preserve, but the "shadow effect" was not 100% effective on the adjacent reefs. Towards the end (it is now closed), training exercises were scheduled around turtle hatching times and turtle nests were marked off on the beaches. Most significantly, however, the years of dropping ordnance on the bombing range both on land and in the water, left excessive amounts of toxic residues. While these were localized at the bombing range, winds and fires on land dispersed them into the wider habitat, extending to the rest of the island (civilian and military). In the water, leaching from the points of source (expended ordnance) dispersed them through the marine ecosystem and along the food chain. On top of that, a World War II destroyer that took part in the Nuclear Bomb Tests in the Pacific was used as a target ship for about ten years, shedding tons of the steel from its superstructure and deck (that was most directly exposed to the nuclear fallout) in unaccounted for locations (even to this day!) either on land or in the sea. And to finish off the top, hundreds of 55-gallon drums located at the wreck site near the bombing range have never been accounted for as to their actual origin (bearing in mind that government reports about the nuclear test describe 55-gallon drums being used to store contaminated materials while other sunken test ships contain similar barrels with such materials).

At Guantanamo Bay, Cuba during the Vietnam era (dates not known to me), tank training occurred on the many rugged scrub desert hills, destroying vegetation and eroding the underlying earth. The tracks are still visible. The activity altered the vegetative habitat of the hills. Runoff of sediments readily reach the nearby coral reef resources, luckily though (in this case) there are not a lot of rain events at the base. Bombing ranges affect several habitat areas, yet many other habitats are left pristine-like in the condition of a preserve. An out of control fire set off by gunnery exercises burned a great extent of the scrub desert habitat (home to endangered Cuban boa). The Shadow Effect is in over-drive in regards to the Cuban jutia (banana rat), a species that is endangered in wider Cuba, yet was close to over-running the base as a sever nuisance requiring pest control. A great extent of mangrove resources were dying due to an unknown cause. Sea grass beds were very healthy, but the condition of the harbor is unknown. Sea turtles, here also, have more recently been given special treatment of conservation including night lighting. Fishing is regulated to a degree (though not enough). Spear fishing occurs, but in selected locations (or rather in the allowed and accessible locations). Much of the coral reef resources are in excellent condition (relative to the wider Caribbean) because of the "defacto-preserve" effect, however fleet mooring locations were once located in these habitats. Some reef areas are designated as "in-fact conservation zones."

At Pearl Harbor, the body of water was once considered the most polluted harbor in the United States. Residual contamination still permeates the bed of the harbor-estuary. I make note of the great sensitivity regarding the events of December 7th, 1941, but the pollution of the harbor predated the horrific event of that day and much was added since then without relation to it (and not all of it related directly to the military). Within even a somewhat recent frame of service, there was little regulation regarding the disposal of items and materials overboard ships. Fish are abundant and large within the harbor and near its entrance (fishing is restricted for good reason). Again, more recent regulations are doing much to improve its condition.

At Diego Garcia, as has been mentioned before by me and others, the impacts are what would be expected from a large installation of its sort on a small island. Improvements in procedures and more recent awareness and regulations have been put in place. As in other places and in the military in general, previous environmental procedures were lax and lacking altogether (as in dynamiting the algal reef platform for fill material to be used to build up land area in the lagoon). I do not try to compare military impacts to civilian ones because that is not the question I am answering. Occasional "industrial" accidents happen (oil/fuel spills). The base population and activities are not extractive because the mission does not call for it, but a rather heavy degree of fishing does occur in places though regulations have been put in place. Holothurians are unaccountably rare in the shallows. As anywhere, there is some poaching and rule cutting. A conservation "replenishment" zone exists in key areas and scuba is not allowed. Much of the rest of the lagoon is untouched as a "defacto-preserve." However, dredging and mooring chain dragging in large areas stirs up sediment and sedimentation levels appeared heavy throughout much of the lagoon.

I think I have made my point (I hope I have). The reality of military "environmentalism" runs the gamut.

Environmental Impacts: Chagossians vs. Military

A valid note to make is that the military at DG is not self sustaining and is mostly non-extractive, relying on shipments of supplies for its existence. Environmental regulations and awareness are in place.

But these things are not exclusive to the military.

"A population of 4000 souls (no families) on a small island with a level of recreational/supplemental fish extraction" describes Diego Garcia.

British courts blocked Chagossians from returning to the islands based on plans of re-settlement which are not valid in the present.

Not all local populations treat their environments well (that goes for the Gulf of Mexico or the Florida Keys as much as it does anywhere else).

There is no reason that a population of 400 to 1000 souls (possibly including families) could not exist in the wider Chagos under rules of environmental expectations alongside and interactive with a successful Chagos MPA. (Before disregarding this statement outright, please consult a map [look at Google Earth or googlemaps.com] to get an idea of scale and of possible usage density.) If there IS a good reason, it has not been honestly explored and discussed in good faith by objective parties as I have said before.

The Bottom Line

However, aside from considerations of re-settlement plans, potential impacts, and quality of MPA's, I finish with this thought: That the very bottom line regulating re-settlement of the islands is the military mission at the Chagos and the Government policy of "requiring" uninhabited islands.

The closely divided finding of Law Lords of the UK did NOT discount the Human Rights violations experienced by the Chagossians, but rather it placed the perception of Security Risks (military mission) ABOVE the Chagossians rights (the eminent domain argument).

My Question

So here is my question: Will the Military finally show up "in person" for this debate OR will it keep letting the Environment take the fall? Can the Military and the respective Governments step forward and make their case for National Security face to face with the Chagossians (the "Man Fridays" as they call them) presenting and listening to the realities and perceptions of both sides?

Maybe then, some level of Mutual Understanding and Human Respect can be achieved and the cause of Environmental Conservation will not continue to be dragged through the mud (expletive replaced) of this despicable, reprehensible situation!!!

David J. Evans

"Defenseless under the night
Our world in stupor lies;
Yet, dotted everywhere,
Ironic points of light
Flash out wherever the Just
Exchange their messages:
May I, composed like them
Of Eros and of dust,
Beleaguered by the same
Negation and despair,
Show an affirming flame."

"September 1, 1939"
W.H. Auden

perspective

*Diego Garcia is the West's projection of military power in the South Asian/Indian Ocean Region (launching air missions and storing supplies). Silent running submarines using oceanographic features to approach the base, which stores nuclear weapons, is also a concern. The base is a prime location to defend against the militarization of space (satellite tracking and the runway serves as an emergency landing site for the space shuttle or other future space vehicles). And the base served as a site for extraordinary rendition at one time.