<B>By Nicolas RAINER</B>

To my knowledge, there is no statute of limitations on ethnic cleansing. And that?s exactly what the British government?s forcible removal of the population of the Chagos amounts to. For if the islanders hadn?t been a few shades darker than pale, could this paragon of perfidy have gotten away with the systematic depopulation of the archipelago? It?s safe to say, no. This becomes painfully evident when one recalls that it dropped its first choice for a military base, the island of Aldabra in the Seychelles, because it was used as nesting ground for a rare breed of turtle.

Hopefully, the Law Lords will savage the Foreign Office?s appeal against earlier judgments. Somehow, the latter demonstrates a total and utter lack of contriteness for its actions.

More insultingly still, it continues to try to justify the unjustifiable, citing security issues as the reason why it refuses to allow resettlement.

The Foreign secretary?s legal representative, Jonathan Crow QC, conceded that the saga did contain ?undeniably unattractive aspects?, but went on to, ahem, crow about the fact that the treatment meted out to the Chagossian community is no longer the order of the day. Ethnic cleansing?s strange like that. People who?ve committed it are rarely keen to take responsibility for what they?ve done.

Yet even Jonathan Crow?s economical use of the truth pales in comparison with the outlandish comments made by a certain F. D. W. Brown. In 1965, Britain?s representative to the United Nations went to great lengths to convince all and sundry that all matters had been conducted legally. "Great care would be taken to look after the welfare of the few local inhabitants, and suitable arrangements for them would be discussed with the Mauritius and Seychelles governments. There was thus no question of splitting up natural territorial units. All that was involved was an administrative readjustment freely worked with the governments and elected representatives of the people concerned."

Mr. Brown?s intervention deserves a place in the pantheon of dishonesty, right up there with Colin Powell?s star turn in front of the UN Security Council in 2003 when the former US Secretary of State solemnly declared that Iraq possessed ?some of the most lethal weapons ever devised?. For the record, let it be noted that resettlement will not pose an "unacceptable risk" to the base on Diego Garcia as the Foreign Office has unabashedly tried to argue. Instead, it?s the policies of the US and UK governments that have made the world unsafe.

Their illegal invasion of Iraq, use of extraordinary rendition and ?waterboarding?, and rampant economic liberalism have done more to swell the ranks of world terrorist organizations than any Al-Qaeda recruitment campaign could ever hope to. But let?s just say that, at this stage, the Foreign Office isn?t "à un mensonge près". As for Jonathan Crow?s assertions that any resettlement would be ?precarious and costly?, it would perhaps be best to allow the Chagossians be the judges of that.

A few years ago, the Chagos Refugee Group?s leader, Olivier Bancoult, said at a press conference: ?When two bulls fight, the grass gets trampled.? Well, the bulls might just be about to receive their comeuppance. And that?s when the word ?schadenfreude? will take on its full meaning.