liadnan: (Default)

The Court of Appeal judgment in the Chagos Islanders (Diego Garcia) case and its predecessor, the Divisional Court judgment (and for completeness see also the 1999 and in particular 2000 judgments in the previous litigation and Ousley J's judgment on a separate issue) make fairly interesting reading, not only for lawyers and those interested in civil liberties or constitutional law but also for historians.

The whole sorry history of the affair is fairly lengthy and all of the judgments above, particularly the more recent Divisional Court one, go into it in detail. Shortly put, back in the 60s the US wanted a nice big airbase in the Indian Ocean: at the time, I guess, to keep an eye on China but it's been important in the US's more recent adventures as well. We had an appropriate island to offer, unfortunately it had some people on it. Actually, that seems to have passed some people in the FCO by: witness this, from Laws LJ's judgment in Bancoult No 1, at para 13:

There is a manuscript note by another official which comments on this minute. It refers to "a certain old fashioned reluctance to tell a whopping fib, or even a little fib, depending on the number of permanent inhabitants". A note dated 24 August 1966 to an official, Mr D A Greenhill, quotes a minute from the Permanent Under Secretary (I assume at the Colonial Office). The Permanent Under Secretary unburdened himself thus:

'We must surely be very tough about this. The object of the exercise was to get some rocks which will remain ours; there will be no indigenous population except seagulls who have not yet got a committee (the Status of Women Committee does not cover the rights of birds).'

This attracted a comment from Mr D A Greenhill, who spoke the same language:

'Unfortunately along with the birds go some few Tarzans or Men Fridays whose origins are obscure, and who are being hopefully wished on to Mauritius etc. When this has been done I agree we must be very tough and a submission is being done accordingly.'

(There's a lot of this kind of attitude in the memos recorded in the judgments, which I confess to finding blackly comic. I'm particularly fond of the refreshing candour of 'the territory is a non-self-governing territory and there is a civilian population even though it is small. In practice, however, I would advise a policy of 'quiet disregard'—in other words, let's forget about this one until the United Nations challenge us on it.' )

The islanders were chucked off, to Mauritius and elsewhere, and in recent years have been trying to undo all this: the 1971 Ordinance that originally banned them was overturned in Bancoult No 1, after which Robin Cook, then Foreign Secretary appeared to accept the decision, saying that new arrangements would be made and he didn't seek to defend the actions of the 1960s government. But when the new Indian Ocean Immigration Order came in in 2004 -after Cook's departure of course- it made being in the islands without a permit an offence punishable by three years in prison, and it became clear they were never going to be allowed home. It is entirely coincidental that B52s and Stealths were flying from Diego Garcia to bomb Iraq in the intervening years, and vague and unsubstantiated allegations that Diego Garcia is a hub for "extraordinary rendition" flights are of course utterly beneath contempt. Nevertheless, Mr Bancoult of the islanders renewed his campaign (and in the meantime the President of Mauritius threatened to take his state out of the Commonwealth if the UK Government did not reconsider).

Well, the islanders won in Bancoult No 2 at first instance as well, and now the Court of Appeal has upheld the Divisional Court. Given that Sedley LJ was one of the three members of the court I suspect that the Government rather expected that: if your case is going to rely on the proposition that the exercise of the Royal Prerogative outside the UK in matters of colonial governance is not subject to judicial review he's hardly the man you want. When you had Laws first time round, you surely begin to suspect the Listing Office of political views. Turns out, unsusprisingly, that it is: at para 64: the royal prerogative, while the common law accords it a very large area of judgment and discretion in colonial matters, is not unlimited or unreviewable. There's a fair bit on legitimate expectations (arising out of what Cook said after Bancoult No 1) as well. On to the Lords, I suspect, but there's a pretty good chance they'll do no better there. Good. In the meantime, this may, oddly enough, have some relevance to a case I'm working on (bearing in mind that there are many CDTs and similar for whom the Crown in Privy Council can legislate and several of them are in the business of fiscal efficiency, to use a polite term).

And if the title of this post is drawing a blank, get thee to the IMDB.

liadnan: (Default)

(Via The Fistful of Euros): Belarus Today

Forward elements of the 1st Motorized Division have entered the outskirts of Minsk, and have overwhelmed the light opposition they have faced. The 3rd Airborne Brigade remains firmly in control of central Minsk. However, in the last ten minutes we have experienced multiple attacks from what appear to be Belarusian Air Force aircraft.

Minsk is burning.

Not until you reach the bottom of the page do you find "This website is part of a foreign policy simulation. The events depicted are not actually taking place."

(ETA: Since the real news looks like this it may only be a matter of time.)

liadnan: (Default)

From yesterday's Snowmail:

The Taliban are alive and well and still oppressing people in Afghanistan no matter what the British or Afghan governments might claim and tonight we'll show you the proof in the form of one incident caught on camera.

It all takes place in wilds of Helmand province - where thousands of British troops are being deployed to try to bring order and tackle the poppy fields. The Taliban in Helmand have been waging a campaign against education - burning schools, attacking teachers, terrorising all concerned.

An independent team working for Channel 4 News in Helmand got a tip off that such an attack was underway and went to film it in progress as a group of Taliban set fire to a school. Incidentally it is worth mentioning the Taliban were clearly Afghans and not foreigners from Pakistan as is often claimed by President Karzai.

While our team were filming the Taliban attack a group of Afghan armed police arrived to defend the school. Chaos ensued in which most of the Taliban got away, our team got beaten up and the school got burned. And this is the chaos our soldiers are walking into.

On the BBC website now:

Bush praises Afghanistan progress

US President George W Bush has praised the progress of Afghan democracy on his first visit to the country, where the US helped eject the Taleban in 2001.

On a surprise first stop of his maiden trip to South Asia, Mr Bush told Afghan President Hamid Karzai his country was "inspiring others".

liadnan: (Default)

Via Nosemonkey, as seems to be increasingly the case:

"The Propaganda We Pass Off As News Around The World": Media Guardian

A succession of scandals in the US has revealed widespread government funding of PR agencies to produce "fake news". Actors take the place of journalists and the "news" is broadcast as if it were genuine. The same practice has been adopted in Iraq, where newspapers have been paid to insert copy. These stories have raised the usual eyebrows in the UK about the pitiful quality of US democracy. Things are better here, we imply. We have a prime minister who claimed in 2004 that "the values that drive our actions abroad are the same values of progress and justice that drive us at home". Yet in 2002 the government launched a littleknown television propaganda service that seems to mimic the US government's deceptive approach to fake news.

[...]

World Television produces the fake news, but its efforts are entirely funded by the Foreign Office, which spent £340m on propaganda activities in the UK alone in 2001. A comprehensive post- 9/11 overhaul means that this figure has probably markedly increased since then.

[...]

The diet of "news" received by viewers of the service includes an endless pageant of government ministers and other official spokespeople. Recent headlines on Iraq refer to happy news such as "Prime minister in surprise visit to Iraq" (December 22 2005) or "Iraqi ambassador upbeat on elections" (December 14 2005). Often Chatham House provides the venue for policy discussions, as in: "The psychology of terror - experts meet" (December 23 2005).

Questioning the occupation is out of the question, but some criticism of US policy is possible. In an extraordinary apologia for the British occupation of Iraq in 1920, the "suggested intro" reads: "This year is not the first time an outside power has sought to construct a modern, democratic, liberal state in Iraq. Britain tried to do the same in the 1920s". The benevolence of the US and the UK is simply assumed: "Today's USled coalition, like the imperial occupiers of 80 years ago, are trying to free Iraq's government and security services from corruption and abuse."

I despair, really I do. As Brad has been known to fulminate about the US administration, "I'll stop calling this crew Orwellian when they stop using 1984 as an operations manual".

Profile

liadnan: (Default)
liadnan

February 2022

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728     

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 14th, 2025 08:16 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios