Homeward bound?

Among the many pieces of advice offered to his successor in The Economist, Tony Blair insists on the importance of continued British military intervention to protect basic human rights abroad. He acknowledges that this has, to his surprise, become of the defining aspects of his premiership. However, at the time he was composing his article, Margaret Beckett, the foreign secretary, was engaged in an ugly dispute with a small bunch of islanders who have been denied the very things Blair has sought to protect; and denied them by Britain.

Between 1967 and 1971, the British government forcibly removed the 2,000 occupants of the tiny Chagos Archipelago in the Indian Ocean. The population were packed up dumped in Mauritius and the Seychelles and legislation was passed to make their return illegal. Under the terms of a secret deal, the island of Diego Garcia was then leased to the USA in order to build a military air base. In exchange, the US wrote off an existing British debt for nuclear missiles. A memo between Prime Minister Harold Wilson and Foreign Secretary Michael Stewart debates the benefits of presenting the move as a 'change of employment for contract workers - rather than as a population resettlement'. The Chagossians were not migrant workers. They were the descendents of African and Indian slaves who arrived on the islands in the eighteenth century to work on French coconut plantations.

As long ago as 2000, the high court ruled that the British expulsion was illegal. This should have been the beginning of a graceful acceptance of a grievous wrong. Instead, in light of the renewed strategic importance of Diego Garcia post-9/11, the government have spent seven years inhumanely dragging their heels. First, it was claimed the islands were no longer habitable. The presence of the soldiers on the base suggested otherwise. An appeal was made for a royal prerogative which was rejected by the high court as unlawful. This decision was contested and, at the end of last month labelled 'unlawful' and an 'abuse of power' by the court of appeal. The court also denied the government the chance of a ruling by the House of Lords, but this too may be appealed. In spite of another legal victory, there is still no end in sight for Chagossians.

It is churlish to suggest that governments should resist the urge to intervene abroad unless their own house is in order. This would withhold the potential for greater peace. Yet when Blair insists that the right to one's homeland is a necessity, it is difficult to trust him when his own government makes it seem like a luxury.