● <B>You were present at the House of Lords last week during the British government?s appeal against the overturning of the Orders in Council. What were your impressions? </B>

First, we must understand the context of the appeal before the House of Lords. You must realize that the Chagossians have always had unanimous judgments in their favour regarding the return to the islands, whether in 2000, 2006 or 2007 before the Court of Appeal. So they went to the House of Lords with a lot of confidence about their right to return.

On the other side, the British government considers the appeal to be very important in terms of law issues, especially when it comes to the ?reviewability? of Orders in Council. This had never happened before and they were concerned that whatever legislation Her Majesty the Queen was going to make could be subject to review. The British government was most upset by the rulings before the High Court and Court of Appeal, because the rulings innovated by declaring that Orders in Council are indeed ?reviewable?. The British government had to contend not only with the Chagos islanders but also with a constitutional issue, of prime importance to them.

● <B>As well as the Americans?</B>

Of course, the British government has always been required by the Americans to keep the islands closed. This is how both parties approached the appeal. It started on Monday [30th June] with very fine arguments from both sets of counsels. Jonathan Crow QC [the Foreign secretary?s counsel] made a lot of sense; he explained the context in which the Orders in Council were issued and why the islanders should not be allowed to go back.

● <B>He also said that resettlement would pose ?an unacceptable risk? for the base. How could resettlement of Peros Banhos and Salomon present a threat to Diego Garcia, which is located dozens of miles away? </B>

Peros Banhos and Salomon are about 130 miles from Diego Garcia. What scares them is the fact that the islanders had participated in meetings and forums with Lalit, the Mauritian political party. According to the British government, Lalit is known, at least in Mauritius, to be anti-American and anti-military base. One of Lalit?s objectives was to organize an international flotilla that would go to Diego Garcia and prompt a confrontation with the Americans.

● <B>You?re telling me that the Chagos Refugee Group?s occasional affiliation with a left-wing political party that threatened to send a few boats to Diego Garcia poses a risk to the biggest American military base outside of the US? </B>

As ridiculous as it sounds, it does according to the British government. We were told about Lalit for about an hour so, about their agenda and how Chagossians would be a threat for the peace and order of Diego Garcia because of their alleged link to Lalit.

● <B>Jonathan Crow also asserted that the Chagossians have no ?property rights? over the archipelago. What?s the story there? </B>

Historically, the islanders were employed on copra plantations. The lands belonged to the companies operating the plantations. As a matter of fact and law, the employees were given the right to occupy lands and build their houses on them. One of the ways they went about the British government depopulation was to buy the land belonging to the copra plantations. The British government is thus the private owner of the islands. Of course, our position is that, although the Chagossians don?t own title deeds to the islands, they have some sort of proprietary interests over them.

● <B>If they don?t own the islands can they aspire to exploit them for tourism and fishing as they?ve said they would? </B>

It?s up to local authorities to decide which parts of the islands are going to be developed and which parts will be allocated for resettlement.

● <B>And who would these local authorities be? </B>

For the time being, it?s the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) Commissioner.

● <B>If the Law Lords reject the British government?s appeal, will it befall the BIOT Commissioner to allocate the land or will the Chagossians resettle wherever they see fit? </B>

I think they?re going to resettle wherever they see fit. They?re going to take the initiative. That will prompt the British government to get things going because if we wait for them they?ll never do anything. Resettlement is a very complicated issue. As yet, there?s no funding or infrastructure but everyone has become a lot wiser since the first High Court ruling in 2000. We?ve identified sources of public funding. For example, the European Union has massive funds for the development of its outer territories.

● <B> ?Precarious and costly? were the words Jonathan Crow used to describe the resettlement?</B>

Our position is that the feasibility study commissioned by the British government was a bogus study that flouted fundamental principles. There were no consultations with the islanders and the statistics they used were not correct. If its findings were correct then why has the US government just decided to allocate several billions of dollars to extend of the base? The Foreign affairs committee of the House of Commons (see inset) has just ruled after hearing lawyers from both sides that they don?t believe the feasibility study and that the Chagossians have a very strong moral case for resettlement.

● <B>What kind of judgment are you expecting? </B>

The appeal was heard by five Law Lords [Bingham, Hoffman, Rodger, Carswell and Mance]. We feel that it will not be a unanimous judgment. We feel that Lord Hoffman and, probably, Lord Carswell were against us. It?s going to be very close. If the House of Lords accepts the appeal, we will take the matter to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

<B>Much ado about rendition and resettlement </B>

The House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee is not one to have the wool pulled over its eyes. In its report on Overseas Territories published earlier this week, the Committee is critical of both the UK and US governments about the way the former conducted its feasibility study and the latter?s attempt to conceal its use of extraordinary rendition. It believes that ?there is a strong moral case for the UK permitting and supporting a return to the British Indian Ocean Territory for the Chagossians?. It also contests the validity of the Foreign Office?s assertion that any resettlement would be unsustainable. "We find these arguments less than convincing", the report avers but concedes that it has decided to ?consider the implications of a resettlement in greater detail? in the light of the FO?s affirmations that ?a return would pose security risks to the base on Diego Garcia?. The report reserves its strongest criticism for the US government, which it castigates for having lied about rendition flights to Diego Garcia. The base was twice used for refueling in 2002 by planes carrying ?a single detainee?. ?On Diego Garcia itself, we conclude that it is deplorable that previous US assurances about rendition flights have turned out to be false. The failure of the United States Administration to tell the truth resulted in the UK Government inadvertently misleading our Select Committee and the House Commons?. The Committee vows to ?examine further the extent of UK supervision of US activities on Diego Garcia?. As for the issue of sovereignty, the Committee recommends that ?any resolution to the UK?s sovereignty dispute with Mauritius over the BIOT must take Chagossians? wishes into account?.