If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn’t plan your mission properly.
— David H. Hackworth, American military journalist
In 1964, American and British leaders planned and decided that Diego Garcia in the Chagos archipelago off the eastern coastline of Africa would make an ideal US military facility. By 1965, British officials were negotiating with Mauritius, a former colony, to relinquish control of the
archipelago.
Many saw it a positive move towards self-determination, self-government and independence for Chagossians who were totally unprepared for what lay in store for them.
By 1968, Chagossians, who were British nationals, were forcibly removed to make way for an American military facility since it had become a British protectorate of sorts. Many years of pleas, prayers, petitions and cries for international help fell on deaf ears.
The much needed help came in 2017 when the United Nations (UN) requested and obtained a “nonbinding advisory opinion” from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) concerning the rights of the displaced Chagossians.
The ICJ rejected American and British arguments that a bilateral treaty agreement between them that had cleverly ousted the jurisdiction of courts met muster. The ICJ, instead, rightfully pointed out that key issue was “decolonisation” for the Chagossians, the terms of which had been violated under customary international law.
In May 2019, the UN rightfully sought implementation of the ICJ’s opinion after receiving a vote of 116 in favour, six against, and 56 abstentions. The UK totally ignored the UN’s resolution to resolve the issue of bringing back the displaced Chagossians who readily agreed not to protest against or interfere with the American military facility’s operations. The UK knew that once the Chagossians were brought back to their homeland the issue of self-determination and self-government would become a painful thorn to its suspect treaty, again, under the floodlights of international scrutiny.
This is a typical case of the might of military power ready, willing and eager, and able to unleash unwarranted punishment instead of obeying the law. And this is not alien law, but common law principles that the Anglo-Saxons were ready to selectively obey when and if it suited their needs.
There is a Latin common law maxim arma in armatos jura sumere sinunt — the laws
permit arms to be used against the armed, or to resist violence by violence. Is this a viable solution for the Chagossians who obviously don’t have a standing army to fight back to reclaim their homeland?
And if indeed, the Chagossians employed a mercenary military force to fight back, we need to
consider the fact that during the clash of arms, the laws become silent, expressed lucidly in the Latin maxim inter arma enim silent leges. Damned if they did, and damned if they did not!
The American and British governments used international law with a few twists, turns, snares, warps and doublespeak to create an ironclad treaty agreement to disadvantage an unsuspecting people while raking in enormous advantages and benefits.
Whatever happened to the guarantee lex semper dabit remedium — a Latin common law maxim meaning the law will always afford a remedy? Is there any remedy under the law, or in the application of justice?
The Chagos chokehold is typical of international bullying. Nothing will prevent another superior nation-state with a formidable military from executing another Chagos-style land grabbing adventure in the name of security and safety “under the law”. The hypocrisy is untenable, unbearable and intolerable.
Ultimately, the only option for the Chagossians is to pester the UN Peacekeeping Forces to step in and restore the balance. Diplomacy will never work as is already evident, and neither will the law. Meanwhile, the world stands silent while forced to witness unlawful hardship caused by civilised Christian nations.
A hypocritical remark by US President Eisenhower says it all: “Military power serves the cause of security by making prohibitive the cost of any aggressive attack. It serves the cause of peace by holding up a shield behind which the patient constructive work of pace can go on.”
Winston Churchill observed that “we sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who will harm us.”
Do Chagossians sleep easy?
Will the British and American leaders come to terms and explain their justification for what they wilfully and deliberately did to the Chagossians? Or will they take refuge in Napoleon Bonaparte’s aside: “It would be a joke if the conduct of the victor had to be justified to the vanquished.”
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the New Sarawak Tribune.
