2010-03-05

Boycott, Divest From, and Sanction Israel?: A Debate on BDS with Omar Barghouti and Rabbi Arthur Waskow

Democracy Now!

JUAN GONZALEZ: Indirect negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian leaders are expected to begin next week as US Middle East envoy George Mitchell returns to the region. The Arab League has agreed to back the US proposal for four months of indirect talks.

While many observers are skeptical of these so-called proximity talks succeeding, when years of direct negotiations have failed to produce an equitable and lasting peace, meanwhile Palestinian civil society and international solidarity activists are using very different tactics to push for a just resolution of the conflict.

In 2005, a coalition of Palestinian civil society groups called for people all over the world to engage in a nonviolent campaign to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel until it complies with international law. Inspired by the international boycott and divestment initiatives applied to South Africa in the struggle to abolish apartheid, the new movement for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, or BDS, for short, was born.

AMY GOODMAN: This week marks what many BDS campaigners call “Israeli Apartheid Week.” First launched at the University of Toronto in 2005, it now includes events at university campuses in more than forty cities around the world.

Several Israeli officials and diasporic Jewish organizations have criticized the events, and a recent report by an Israeli think tank highlights the BDS movement as part of a “deligitimization network” that Israel should treat as a “potentially existential threat.”

Well, today we’re going to host a debate on the BDS movement, the call to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel. Omar Barghouti is a founding member of the BDS campaign. He’s a Palestinian human rights activist and commentator. He’s joining us from Berkeley, California. And for an anti-BDS position, we’re joined from Philadelphia by Rabbi Arthur Waskow, a longtime antiwar and civil rights activist, founder and director of the Shalom Center, theshalomcenter.org.

We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Omar Barghouti, why don’t you lay out why you established the BDS campaign, why you want people to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel?

OMAR BARGHOUTI: The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, or BDS, campaign is a call by Palestinian civil society. It’s supported by almost the entire Palestinian civil society, political forces, NGOs, women’s organizations, unions, and so on.

It’s calling upon people of conscience around the world to boycott Israel and institutions that are complicit with Israel, including companies and so on, because of its three-tiered system of oppression against the Palestinian people: its occupation, 1967 occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and that includes East Jerusalem; as well as its system of racial discrimination against its non-Jewish citizens, the Palestinian citizens of Israel; and the third and foremost is its denial of the right of return for the refugees, Palestinian refugees, in accordance with UN Resolution 194. So these three forms of injustices are exactly what we’re targeting. We’re targeting Israel because we want to end its impunity, and we want to end complicity of the world in this system of injustice.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And Rabbi Arthur Waskow, could you explain to us why you think this is a wrong approach to the problem?

RABBI ARTHUR WASKOW: So, first let me say shalom and salaam and peace to you, Amy and Juan, and to Mr. Barghouti, and to say, to begin with, that in a sense I think the question, yes or no on BDS, is the wrong question. The right question is, how do we bring about an end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and the blockade of Gaza, and of East Jerusalem? And it seems to me that when you put the question that way, BDS really becomes an ineffective and, in some ways, unethical way of going about it, that the major change that needs to happen is a profound change in the actions of the United States government, and that there were hints of that, more than hints, in the rhetoric of President Obama, but a total failure to carry through in policy on the rhetoric of the Cairo speech and some work since then.

The real question is, can the United States—will the United States—it can, for sure—will the United States use its enormous influence and power to end the occupation, to end the state of war between Israel and the entire Arab world except for Egypt and Jordan? Can the United States bring about a full-fledged peace treaty between a new state of Palestine, the state of Israel, and the Arab states. The Arab states have, in fact, proposed this. The Israeli government and the last US government, the Bush administration, totally ignored the proposal. There are hints that that’s what the Obama administration wants to bring about.

But it won’t happen unless there is a public movement in American society to demand that. It won’t happen otherwise. And when I ask the question, so what’s the most effective way of bringing that about, it seems to me an alliance of the three groups of people in America who care passionately about the peoples of the Middle East—Muslims, serious Christians and serious Jews—an alliance of those in those three camps who are committed to peace is now possible. In the Jewish community, there are now organizations and commitments and human beings ready to act on this, even though the classic, formal, institutional structure of the established Jewish institutional system doesn’t. But the Jews do, and among Muslims and among most Protestant and Catholic Christians—not some of the right-wing fundamentalist Christians, but the rest of the Christian community. But they have not come together in any way to make this happen. And that’s what needs to happen.

There are reasons that I think BDS is a mistaken approach. And I’ll explore those—

OMAR BARGHOUTI: If I may interrupt?

RABBI ARTHUR WASKOW: —but I wanted to make clear that I think there is another way to go at this.

AMY GOODMAN: Before Omar Barghouti responds, I wanted to stay with you, Rabbi Waskow. You supported the anti-apartheid movement. You supported the divestment movement and the sanctions movement against South Africa. But you call the BDS movement against Israel, as you were just saying, perhaps unethical. What do you see as the difference?

RABBI ARTHUR WASKOW: Well, one major difference is a strategic difference. The enormous support for the South African apartheid regime did not come from governmental sources. It came from private banks. I did a sit-in at the Chase Manhattan Bank in 1965 to demand an end to its loans to the apartheid government. In this situation, the enormous economic support is not coming from private banks and industry. There’s some, but that’s not the big support. The big support is from the United States government. That’s totally different from the South African situation. If you apply the kind of basic issue in South Africa, how do you change the economic relations, with the unjust behavior of the Israeli government now and the unjust and violent and occasionally vile behavior of some Palestinian leaders? How do you change that? It’s the United States government you’ve got to look to, not private industry or private commerce. So that’s one really big difference simply at strategic and tactical levels.

Ethically, the problem is that there is a real Israeli society with a decent substructure: culture, economics, life process, the revival of Hebrew, the creation of novels, etc., etc. The trouble with the BDS, across-the-board sanctions and boycotts and so on, vis-à-vis Israel is that it demonizes Israeli society. It does not say there is an Israeli government which is behaving badly, and therefore we need to bring pressure to bear on the Israeli government, as, by the way, and not so by the way, the folks who actually did the Gaza Freedom voyage found that when they got into Gaza, Hamas acted unjustly and repressively toward them. It didn’t want them to make contact with the Palestinians of Gaza, the real folks in the streets. So there is not just the demonization of a whole people and the sanctification of another people. The Israeli government, overwhelmingly, some Palestinian leaders, less powerfully, because they have less power, are acting unjustly and oppressively. And that’s where the focus needs to be. BDS demonizes a whole society.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Omar Barghouti, what about the issue, one, of whether the campaign demonizes an entire society? And also, if you can speak about the similarities that you see between the anti-apartheid boycott campaign and this one, especially in the situation where states, the existing states in the world, were unable to remedy either the South Africa situation or the current situation in the Middle East?

OMAR BARGHOUTI: OK, there are obvious similarities, but this is not just about similarity between the Israeli apartheid and colonial system and the South African apartheid system. This is about whether Israel is indeed practicing apartheid and colonial rule against the indigenous Palestinians. And it is. And this is according to the UN Convention on the Suppression of the Crime of Apartheid. We don’t have to prove that Israel is identical to South Africa to prove that Israel is practicing apartheid. We’re saying that it conforms to the UN definition of the system of apartheid.

What do we mean by that? Inside Israel proper—forget the occupied Palestinian territories of 1967—inside Israel, there are two systems of laws: one applying to its Jewish citizens, who are also nationals, and another applying to its non-Jewish citizens. So there’s clear discrimination. Even the US State Department, in its annual human rights reports, accuses Israel of institutionalized legal and societal discrimination against the Palestinian Arab citizens of the state of Israel.

So how do we end the occupation, apartheid, as well as denial of refugee rights? It’s through boycott, divestment, and sanctions as an empowering tool that can have the masses, that can have the social movement acting to change US policy, exactly as we did—and I was in the anti-apartheid movement in the South African case—as we did against South African apartheid.

Of course there’s complicity from Western governments, but so was the case in the South African apartheid case, and companies and institutions. The most important way to challenge this system of complicity and to challenge Israel’s impunity and exceptionalism—Israel is put on a pedestal, and it’s not treated like the rest of the world when it comes to its violations of human rights and international law—we need to take it down from that pedestal and treat it like every other offender, every other system, that creates such injustices.

This is not about demonizing Israel as in an abstract term. What BDS is delegitimizing is delegitimizing racism, apartheid and colonial rule, exactly what BDS in the South African case was delegitimizing. It was not delegitimizing white people or Christians; it was delegitimizing apartheid. So this is what we are against. We’ve never come out and said we’re against this or that group of people based on their identity. We’re against Israeli apartheid and colonialism. We couldn’t care less if Israel were a Jewish state, Catholic state or Muslim state. So long as it’s oppressing us, we will continue to resist it.

And BDS is a very nonviolent and effective form of resistance. It is growing tremendously. No one can speak on behalf of the Jews of the world, as if they’re are all in one basket. I think that’s completely inappropriate. There are many Jewish groups that do support the BDS movement, including inside Israel, including in this country. And increasingly in Western Europe, many Jewish groups are joining the BDS movement, because they see it as one that’s very morally consistent. It’s based on international law and universal human rights. It does not distinguish between people based on their identity, as the Israeli system does.

Second, the Israeli state is not standing alone in space. It is completely supported by the institutions of the state of Israel, including academic and cultural institutions. No amount of rebranding and dance groups and music and poetry can cover up Israel’s apartheid and colonial system. So this rebranding effort is exactly unethical, because it’s trying to whitewash this system of oppression.

And the last point I want to mention is that it’s a very opportune time to debate this, at a time when the University of California students are striking against the incredible rise in the tuition fees and the privatization, so to speak, from the back door, of college education in this country. Why should the University of California raise the fees by 32 percent, while Israel is receiving from the United States more than $5.6 billion a year in military aid as well as other forms of aid? Why should Israel, an apartheid and colonial system, continue to receive this huge subsidy, tens of billions of dollars over the years of the occupation and apartheid, while the health system, education system, infrastructure in this country are crumbling, and education, college education, is again becoming a privilege of the rich? Education should be available to everyone. And to do that, we really need to address where the priorities are in US funding.

AMY GOODMAN: Omar Barghouti, what about Rabbi Waskow’s point that it matters less to target Israel, it’s the United States that’s the real power in this situation in its huge support for Israel? And also, in your BDS movement, which companies would you be targeting?

OMAR BARGHOUTI: OK. But precisely because it’s the US that’s the sponsor of Israeli oppression and apartheid, we are indeed trying to change US policy. The issue is how to do that. We have the South African precedent, a very good lesson to learn from, that this is the way of changing policy in the US. It’s not through begging. It’s not through writing letters to Obama that he would ignore. It’s through mass movement, social movement at the grassroots level, students and churches and unions and women’s groups and feminists and so on, all of them acting together on a platform that’s anti-racist, progressive, and wants to end injustice.

RABBI ARTHUR WASKOW: I agree with that, but the question is whether BDS is the way to bring that social movement together.

OMAR BARGHOUTI: So I think—I think—I think this is the point, that we have to act from the grassroots up to pressure and change.

The companies—your second question is what companies we do target in the BDS movement. It varies. BDS is not a one size that fits all. It’s context-sensitive. In every situation, we target companies that are complicit in Israel’s apartheid and occupation that we can win our battle against. So in the US, many American military companies are being targeted. In Sweden, a French company was targeted. In Britain—and so on and so forth. So it’s Israeli companies as well as international companies that are complicit in Israel’s apartheid and occupation.

AMY GOODMAN: Rabbi Waskow, your response?

RABBI ARTHUR WASKOW: Well, first of all, it’s interesting that Mr. Barghouti focuses on the certainly unreasonable military aid the United States gives to Israel—and, by the way, to Egypt, as well—as the problem for the University of California, when in fact ten or twenty or thirty times that amount of money is being spent on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s where the huge amounts of money that should be going to American schools, universities, infrastructure, ought to be coming from. And by that standard, it’s almost—it’s a dangerous and poisonous drop in the bucket, but it is a drop in the bucket, the aid to Israel and to Egypt for—with military aid to them. The big question in American society ought to be the overwhelming distortion involved in the massive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the American military that is engorged even aside from and beside those wars.

But secondly—

OMAR BARGHOUTI: Which is the same agenda.

RABBI ARTHUR WASKOW: —the question is, indeed, how do you create a mass movement? How do you create a social movement? And what I said is what I think needs to happen. Mosques, churches, synagogues, and, yes, feminists and students and so on, ought to be gathering around a demand that the United States government insist on the Palestinian independence, on the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, all of it, in approximately the 1967 boundaries, and a full peace treaty for Israel with the Arab states. That is an ethical demand. It doesn’t demonize anybody. It ends the oppression of the occupation. It ends the danger—

OMAR BARGHOUTI: But you’re ignoring the majority of the Palestinians.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well—

OMAR BARGHOUTI: You’re ignoring the majority of the Palestinians.

RABBI ARTHUR WASKOW: No, it doesn’t ignore the majority of the—

JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask Rabbi Waskow, the issue of—Israel is obviously worried about this delegitimization campaign, and one of the Israeli think tanks, Reut, issued a whole analysis and a strategy for combating it. And it talked about the fact that generally Israel has concentrated on state-to-state relations to achieve its ends. Here in the United States, you say that we should be focusing, or the people should be focusing on effecting government policy. But doesn’t the fact that both the Democrats and Republican parties, virtually all of the leadership of both parties has lined up for decades behind Israeli policy, indicate that perhaps a different direction, a civil society approach, as this one represented by the BDS campaign, is a new way to go and that precisely it’s the fact that it is a non-state movement that is developing under BDS that has some sections of Israeli society worried about its effectiveness?

RABBI ARTHUR WASKOW: No, that’s not the reason. They’re upset because there is some organizing going on. I assure you that if, in American cities, mosques, churches and synagogues, together, said—together said, “We are going to demand that our members of Congress insist—and the President—insist on a full peace treaty for an independent Palestinian state, alongside Israel, and a full peace treaty with the rest of the Arab world,” that the Israeli—present Israeli government would be a great deal more scared, and the Israeli people would become excited at the idea of, at last, at last, a peace treaty that ended the pressures on Israel, with the only tradeoff—and for many Israelis, it would be a good tradeoff—being getting off the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.

And in the American Jewish community, which has been hostile to any kind of arrangement that the Israeli government didn’t like, such an approach, which included a full peace treaty for Israel, as well as a full peace treaty with Palestine, that would appeal to a huge proportion of the American Jewish community. And organizations that didn’t support it would fall into line or would fall apart as a result. It’s the social—I agree about the social movement being necessary, but it’s not going to get there by BDS. It’s going to get there by targeting the most important target—

OMAR BARGHOUTI: But it’s happening.

RABBI ARTHUR WASKOW: —the government of the United States.

OMAR BARGHOUTI: It is happening.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Omar Barghouti, your response?

OMAR BARGHOUTI: Yeah, well, first, it is happening. I mean, the rabbi is denying that this is happening. BDS is indeed spreading tremendously. We have major support from large trade unions in Britain, Norway, Spain, France, Italy and many, many countries, Canada, of course. And increasingly it’s entering the United States, slower than the rest of the Western world, but it’s happening. There’s a huge movement supporting BDS that includes several Jewish groups, and that’s being ignored. There’s a disproportionately high number of Jewish—conscientious Jewish citizens of the Western countries that are not just acting, but leading some BDS movements around the Western world.

But again, let’s go back to the issue. This is not just about ending the occupation. There are three basic rights for the Palestinian people. The majority of the Palestinians happen to be not in the occupied Palestinian territories; they happen to be refugees, ethnically cleansed, during the creation of the state of Israel in and after 1948. These are completely ignored in addressing—reducing Palestinian rights to self-determination to simply ending the occupation will not do. This is simply unacceptable. We have to address Israeli apartheid, the system of racial discrimination, and we have to address the UN sanctions rights of the refugees.

But the most critical issue to address now—not strategically, now—is ending the siege of Gaza. There’s a criminal siege of Gaza. The Goldstone report, the UN rapporteur for human rights, all of them describe the war crimes committed by Israel in Gaza. And the siege is certainly a big form of collective punishment, which is a crime against humanity. People are dying. Real people are dying. This is not an abstract notion. The siege must end.

So we’re reaching a stage where Israel is committing slow acts of genocide against 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza. This is extremely critical, and it demands people of conscience around the world to act, and act very effectively. And the BDS movement offers them an empowering, nonviolent tool through which they can impact policy in the US, in the Western world, and certainly in Israel.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you feel, Rabbi Arthur Waskow—

RABBI ARTHUR WASKOW: Well, I agree that the—

AMY GOODMAN: —there is a point—Rabbi Waskow, is there a point that you would support—a point at which you would support BDS? What would—what do you think has to get worse?

RABBI ARTHUR WASKOW: No, it’s not a matter of what has to get worse. The question is how to end the worse. And I don’t think BDS is going to end it. And if BDS spreads in Western Europe, it isn’t going to matter. It’s the United States that has the actual power to make a difference. And BDS is not going to engage enough of the American population to matter. What is going to matter is the structure of American military aid and the structure of American diplomacy toward Israel, toward Egypt, toward the Arab world. That’s what matters. And BDS in Western Europe is not going to matter. So it’s not a matter of what gets worse; it’s a matter of how to end the worse.

And I say again, the—yes, there needs to be a social movement. There now is—in the Jewish community, there’s not only J Street having absorbed and empowered the folks of Brit Tzedek v’Shalom, there is also movement inside the Reform Jewish movement. There is movement among Jews who, in theory, are unaffiliated, but care about this issue, and who feel unrepresented by most of the American Jewish established institutions. That’s where the change has to include, and along with that, it has to include the Protestant and Catholic churches, it has to include Islam in America. And the working together is what’s going to make the difference. Those are the only Americans, aside, I guess, from the big oil, who care about the Middle East.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to have—we’re going to have to leave it there for now. We want to thank Rabbi Arthur Waskow, founder and director of the Shalom Center, and Omar Barghouti, who is one of the founding members of the BDS campaign, the boycott, divest from and sanction Israel campaign.

RABBI ARTHUR WASKOW: And I want to end by saying again, shalom and salaam and peace to all of us.

AMY GOODMAN: Thank you.

Human rights groups condemn Israel for blackmailing patients

The Palestine Telegraph

In a message to Israel's attorney general, three human rights organizations criticized Israeli intelligence agencies for blackmailing Palestinian patients in Gaza, exploiting their vulnerability in order to pressure them into collaborating with the occupation authorities. According to the organizations, a number of patients have been given false promises that they would be allowed to leave the Gaza Strip for medical care. However, once they reached the Beit Hanoun border crossing, they have been arrested and led to prisons inside Israel.

treatment"This is an illegal policy in which the desperate situation of the patients is taken advantage of, and medical care turns into a tool that serves the security body," said a spokesman.

The organizations include Israel's Physicians for Human Rights, the ADALA centre and Mezan Centre for Human Rights. In their message, they included three case studies of patients who were detained in prisons inside Israel. In two of those recent cases, the patients were arrested while they were at Erez border crossing on their way to receive medical treatment.

These three cases trigger concerns that there is an official policy of misleading patients and taking advantage of their desperate need for medical treatment, to entice them to cooperate with Israeli security bodies.

"We believe that if the aforementioned policy is being adopted, it represents an unethical abuse of the medical system, and also of patients' suffering and desperate medical conditions, in order to carry out arrests and interrogations. Thus, this policy must be stopped immediately."

Gush Shalom - This Week's Message

Gush Shalom

SANITY

Nobody would think about
Destroying dozens of
Jewish homes
Because King David
Had a garden there
3000 years ago.

In Israel 2010,
Such an evil plan
Against Arabs
Was seriously considered
And came close
To being carried out.

Only at the last moment
It was postponed
By Binyamin Netanyahu
In a rare act of sanity.

Ad published in Haaretz, March 5, 2010

Saturday, 6.3: from all the country to Sheikh Jarrah

Gush Shalom

Saturday, 6.3: from all the country to Sheikh Jarrah

This Saturday evening (March 6, 2010) we will be taking part in the Solidarity Rally for the residents of Sheikh Jarrah under the slogans

WE WILL NOT BE STOPPED - NO TO THE JUDAIZATION OF EAST JERUSALEM

Transport details

Updates and details on the struggle

2010-03-04

Palestinian Organizer Assaulted at an Israeli Checkpoint

Popular Struggle Co-ordination Committee

Mahmoud Zwahre, a prominent member of the alMaasara Popular Committee Against the Wall and Settlements, was brutally assaulted at the Israeli Container Checkpoint near Bethlehem this morning. Zwahre was on his way to a Ramallah meeting when his car was stopped. He was held for nearly two hours, during which he was kicked, punched and beaten using a rifle butt.

Mahmoud Zwahre of the alMa’sara Popular Committee Against the Wall and Settlements was detained at the Container Checkpoint near Bethlehem this morning on his way to a meeting in Ramallah. Zwahre was detained after a Border Police officer positioned at the checkpoint recognized him from the weekly demonstrations held in alMa’sara for the past 3.5 years. He was held for almost two hours, during which he was subjected to an aggressive search through his possessions and his car, and then detained in an interrogation room for no apparent reason.

In the interrogation room, with no witnesses around, Zwahre was punched, kicked and beaten with a rifle butt by the officer for over 10 minutes. During the rampage, the officer explained that the beating was intended to “teach Mahmoud a lesson”, because he recognized him from the demonstrations. He also threatened to order his arrest. Zwahre was eventually released, suffering minor injuries and bruises, and intends to file a complaint against the officer.

Zwahre’s abuse at the checkpoint today is part of a larger campaign Israel is waging in an attempt to suppress the Palestinian popular struggle. Recent months have seen the arrest of dozens of individuals connected to anti-Wall and settlement protest, often on questionable grounds or without any charge at all.

In the village of alMaasara alone, where Zwahre is from, the Army and Shin Bet have made clear threats against members of the popular committee on five different occasions between December 29th, 2009, and January 15th, 2010. The threats, mostly conveyed during night-time raids on the village, included warnings that popular committee members would be beaten and arrested should they continue to mobilize people and organize demonstrations.

During a January 15th night-time raid into the houses of both Mahmoud and Mohammad Breija, soldiers warned the two that repercussions would follow if they did not stop organizing protests in the village. Zwahre was even threatened that a child may end up dead as a result, implying that the responsibility for the repression and its cost will lie with the Popular Committee

Last Friday, the army conducted a pre-dawn raid on Brejia’s house once more, in a prelude to a siege soldiers held on the village the entire day in order to prevent the weekly demonstration from taking place. As the demonstration set out from the village’s mosque towards the walled off lands, it was attacked by soldiers who took over rooftops at the entrance to the village.

Weekly demonstrations have been held in the village of alMaasara since November 2006, in protest of the ongoing land theft of farmland belonging to alMa’sara and the eight surrounding villages in the South of Bethlehem district. Demonstrations began when Israel started constructing the Wall in the area, and a way that will allow the expansion of the Gush Etzion settlement block.

2010-03-03

Why Greenpeace supports a Marine Reserve in the Chagos

Greenpeace UK

Marine Reserves Now diver

Greenpeace believes that there is an overwhelming case for giving full protection to the waters of the Chagos as a no-take Marine Reserve and has now formally responded to the UK government's consultation on the Chagos Islands Marine Protected Area.

But the UK Government consultation does not address everything that needs to be addressed in the Chagos Islands: The Chagossian people, who were removed from the islands prior to the creation of the Diego Garcia military base, are still fighting for justice. Early Greenpeace campaigner Rex Weyler tells that sorry tale in his blog here.

Greenpeace wants to see justice for the Chagossians, and believes that on their return to the archipelago they must be fully involved in managing their waters and protecting their seas. Our submission points to some successful models whereby careful zonation has enabled small-scale sustainable fishing to be incorporated into large-scale Marine Reserves.

Moreover, Greenpeace is of course fundamentally opposed to the existence of the Diego Garcia military base.

You can read our full submission here.

In the submission we set out the rationale for why Marine Reserves are more effective than other kinds of marine protected area (MPA) and the need for large-scale protection.

Establishing a Marine Reserve would immediately start delivering tangible benefits to the environment and prohibit destructive fishing practices.

Some key points from our submission:

  • Greenpeace supports the creation of a no-take Marine Reserve in the Chagos archipelago. This type and scale of protected area is what we have been campaigning to establish for many years, and what globally our oceans desperately need. If created, this would be the largest no-take Marine Reserve in the world, but even then we would still be a long, long way off what we need, which is a global network of large-scale, fully-protected Marine Reserves covering some 40% of our oceans.
  • Creating a no-take marine reserve would not only allow exploited stocks to recover and thrive, but also give sanctuary to species likes sharks and turtles, as well as help make the coral reef system around the Chagos Islands more resilient to the impacts of climate change.
  • The Marine Reserve should be established without prejudice to the rights of the Chagossians or the sovereignty claim of Mauritius. The Chagossians have experienced an egregious and historic wrong for which the UK government should make full amends. Indeed, we believe another important rationale for the creation of a full no-take Marine Reserve is to put an immediate end to the ongoing commercial exploitation of these disputed waters prior to the resolution of the dispute.
  • Upon the return of the Chagossian people, Greenpeace would be happy to engage with them on how they can best develop small-scale, low-impact, sustainable fishing practices whilst continuing to ensure the effective protection of this globally-important ecosystem.
  • Greenpeace is of the view that the Diego Garcia nuclear-capacity military base represents a threat to the local and global environment, as well as to world peace, and should be abolished.

The establishment of a Marine Reserve is a first step towards securing a better and sustainable future for the Chagos Islands, a future which must include securing justice for the Chagossian people and the closure and removal of the military base.

Troubled history tinges marine plan

by Richard Black

BBC

So what do you think: should the Chagos Islands archipelago be turned into a marine reserve, or shouldn't it?

Chagos archipelagoIf you care either way, you have until the end of the week to give the UK government your views.

If you don't care either way... well, read on, and perhaps you'll decide whether it matters or not.

The colonial history of the Chagos does not make a pretty tale.

Discovered by Vasco da Gama in the 1500s and pretty much uninhabited as far as early explorers could tell, the territory was claimed in the 1700s by France, which decided the place ought to be inhabited so plantation owners could grow coconuts and make a profit.

It became British with the fall of Napoleon in 1814. The plantations eventually failed, but some of the workers remained.

Many places that were annexed and traded between colonial powers have similar tales to tell, of course. But whereas most of those tales end with independence some time in the middle of the last century, this one doesn't.

Instead, it continued with perhaps the darkest move of all; the deportation of all 2,000 inhabitants of the largest island - Diego Garcia - in the late 60s and early 70s in order that the US could establish a military base there.

A series of recent court judgements has ruled that displaced Chagossians have the right to return home. Only a ruling in 2008 by the UK House of Lords prevents the government from having to allow them back - perhaps being forced to fund their return in full.

The legal saga isn't over, with Chagossians pursuing their cause now through European courts.

But if there can be a silver lining to such a history of man's capacity for inhumanity to man, it is that nature has flourished in the scarcely populated archipelago.

With no indigenous fishermen left and with international fleets largely barred from its territorial waters, with tourism conspicuous by its absence, the islands and their extensive coral fringes are now arguably the largest unvisited and unspoilt chunk of life-rich waters on the planet.

Which is why nine conservation organisations comprising the Chagos Environment Group are campaigning to see full protection conferred on the archipelago, to make its seas a full marine protected area with all fishing and other forms of exploitation banned.

The government likes the idea, and last year opened a public consultation [863KB PDF]. Originally scheduled to end last month, it now closes on 5 March - this coming Friday.

If approved, the huge size of the territorial waters would make this one of the biggest marine protected areas in the world, covering more than half a million square kilometres - a little larger than the total area of US-owned Pacific Ocean protected as one of George W Bush's final environmental acts.

Hawksbill turtleAnd what riches it contains: more than 1,000 species of fish including rays, sharks and tuna, and 200 corals; endangered green and hawksbill turtles; the world's biggest land crab, the metre-spanning coconut crab; and breeding colonies of terns and shearwaters, the most diverse in the region.

The Chagos Environment Group makes the point that protecting these reefs and atolls could well bring benefits to other parts of the ocean by providing a secure nursery for fish.

And with no-one but a few thousand military personnel in the place, no-one's lives would be compromised by new constraints.

So what's not to like?

One concern surrounds the Chagossians, who still hold out hope of securing a passage home.

Once there, they would need to live - and fishing, for local consumption or export, would be an obvious option.

So would full protection now make it less likely that they opt to return, supposing they eventually win their case - or less likely that they could survive independent of government support if they did return? The UK government has argued once before that it's virtually impossible for people to survive there without financial assistance.

At some point, when the US doesn't want its military base anymore, Diego Garcia and other islands will be given to Mauritius. Would it want to inherit such stringent protection over what would then amount to most of its territorial waters, and the expense of keeping them pristine?

A third concern is financial. Marine reserves need to be policed - and that will perhaps become increasingly important as demand for fish, especially high-value species such as tuna, increases.

But how should policing be funded if there is no income from tourism or from fishing in associated areas? Is that sustainable?

The UK consultation document tries to put the first two of these to bed. Any decision on a reserve will be made "without prejudice" to the Chagossian's legal battle, and it includes a joint communiqué in which Mauritius makes clear it's happy with the situation.

Yet by stressing that the decision will be made in the context of current UK policy that "there is no right of abode in the territory and all visitors need a permit", are UK authorities laying themselves open to the charge that protecting nature fits their people policy a little too comfortably?

One issue the plan certainly illustrates is the growing importance of archipelago states in marine conservation.

Increasingly, conservation groups are realising that you get a lot of "bangs for your buck" in protecting territorial waters in states made up of scattered islands. In the Chagos, territorial waters cover an area 10,000 times bigger than the actual land.

The Pew Environment Group is one making a lot of headway here, as demonstrated by its involvement in the Chagos application, the recently-declared Palau shark sanctuary, and the 2008 US Pacific territories plan.

Conservation science is clear on the importance of maintaining large, integrated areas where the habitat as well as the species are protected. And with no legal formulation yet in place for establishing reserves on the high seas - international waters - these archipelago nations are as good as it gets.

And the argument is made that if the Chagossians do eventually return with an exemption allowing them to fish, they would find themselves in some of the best-stocked seas on the planet.

So what do you think? Should the Chagos plan go ahead? Answers on a postcard, as they used to say, to the UK Foreign Office... or you could always post a comment here.