Author: JJ Robinson

Maldives helpline “a great achievement”: Child Helpline International

The Maldives’ Child Helpline represents “a great achievement” for the country after a year of operation, says Amrita Singh, Program Manager Asia Pacific Region for Child Helpline International (CHI).

CHI is an international network of telephone helplines and outreach services for children and young people across 150 countries.  The network has been involved in setting up the Maldives helpline since its inception in 2007. Singh visited the helpline at the Department of Family and Gender last week.

“The quality of the intervention is high, and the follow-up [of cases] is very high,” she noted. “There’s a good average number of calls and a steady stream of cases, and lot of calls seeking information. There’s also been a lot of prank calls, but in the Helpline world that’s a natural way for children to try out the helpline. One of the goals is to convert silent calls to an intervention call.”

Government support and the involvement of a telecom partner (Dhiraagu) from the outset were key factors behind the success of the Maldives’ Child Helpline in its formative year, Singh said. Child Helplines in many other countries are the initiative of civil society NGOs, and often have to fight for government backing.

“Best practice is to partner with a telecommunications company, otherwise a fee has to be paid for each call,” Singh explained. “It works best when there is a partnership model – so it’s not just one body involved but the government, UN agency, NGO and police.”

A successful Helpline served as an entry point for a child into a country’s child protection system, she explained, while the data obtained and collated from similar services worldwide gave children a valuable voice.

The Maldives’ helpline still had the occasional connectivity issue – common in the formative years of a Child Helpline, according to Singh – and “needs to identify [and reach] more children who don’t know about the helpline.”

“There’s a lot of potential for things like SMS and online counselling,” Singh suggested, adding that marketing efforts had to strike a balance between the efficacy and the capacity of the service.

The Maldives Child Helpline has received 2181 calls since it was launched in November 2009, approximately six every day. Of these calls, 72 led to intervention or assistance, while 371 were requests for information. 227 were silent, 470 were pranks, 779 were blank and 212 were listed as unclassified.

Of the calls which led to intervention, approximately half involved physical, sexual or emotional abuse of a child, or neglect, observed Munzir Ismail, consultant at the Department of Family and Gender.

“There were also some runaways. We worked to restore the children to their family and work on improving the relationships,” he said.

Most of the calls had come from Male’, he said, and that the centre’s planned annual capacity of 2,500 was on target to be met.

The blank calls, Munzir noted, involved either connectivity issues or a hesitance on behalf of the child to speak to the helpline operator – “in these cases the operator encourages them to call back when they feel ready, to try and build a relationship with the child.”

The 24 hour toll-free Maldives Child Helpline is available on 1412.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“Silver linings” says President, as Supreme Court ruling prompts Cabinet reshuffle

The departure of seven members of the Maldivian cabinet following Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling that ministers cannot retain their posts without endorsement by the opposition-majority parliament has prompted President Mohamed Nasheed to reshuffle the cabinet.

The Supreme Court ruling came after opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) leader took the government to court on the matter after using its majority to disapprove the reappointments of seven cabinet ministers. MPs of the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) boycotted the vote in protest.

President Nasheed appointed Political Advisor Hassan Afeef as Home Minister, replacing Mohamed Shihab, who has been appointed Advisor on Political Affairs.

Shifa Mohamed has been promoted from Deputy Minister of Education to Minister in place of Dr Musthafa Luthfy. Both Afeef and Shifa received letters of appointment last night.

Foreign Minister Dr Ahmed Shaheed has meanwhile resigned and been replaced by Minister of Housing and Environment Mohamed Aslam, in the post of acting minister.

Attorney General Dr Ahmed Ali Sawad, formerly the Tourism Minister, has also resigned and been replaced by Minister of Human Resources, Youth and Sports Hassan Latheef, as acting Attorney General.

Minister of Health and Family Dr Aminath Jameel has been appointed acting Minister of Fisheries and Agriculture in place of Dr Ibrahim Didi.

Minvan News understands that no acting minister has currently been appointed to the Defence portfolio, which will instead be directed by the President with the assistance of security advisors.

It’s not cricket

During a press conference held on Saturday evening at the President’s residence ‘Muleaage’, Nasheed briefly discussed the Maldives’ cricketing triumph over Saudi Arabia in the Asian Cricket Council’s (ACC) 2010 Trophy Challenge, before opening the floor to questions.

Nasheed denied that the parliament had impacted the functioning of government or that the Supreme Court’s ruling had crippled the executive’s ability to appoint cabinet in a highly partisan political landscape.

Instead, he stated, the ruling “makes interpretation of the Constitution much more clear, and should therefore assist governance. Other than giving us clarity, I don’t really see as an obstruction to governance. I see it as giving more clarity as to how go about it.”

The President said he did not regret the decision in June for cabinet to temporarily resign en masse in protest against obstruction by parliament, which opened the executive to a Majlis counter-attack by its refusal to approve ministerial reappointments.

There was, he said, “a bigger picture.”

“I do not regret what happened in June. Try to understand the political landscape and what was happening at that time – which became quite clear through the [leaked] telephone conversations.

“Elements in the opposition were bent on disrupting the government. In very many words we heard that they wanted to topple the government, and remove many cabinet ministers. Cabinet at that time felt it had enough justification to say it was very difficult to govern because of parliamentary obstruction.”

The political instability and “looming uncertainties” created in the resultant vacuum “created an environment where a Supreme Court could be established.”

“For us to be able to come up with a Supreme Court was a fair achievement,” Nasheed said, “and we were able to get that primarily because of a number of political uncertainties that were looming at that time.”

“Now that we have a Supreme Court, it is clear on how we have to proceed with affairs and implement the Consitiution. I think it is a fine experience and I really think that once we step back and have a look what has actually happened, we will be able to understand that there are many many silver linings.”

As for the resigned ministers, “they are very capable people and we will be using their services – if they are willing. I have already had conversatinos with them. I believe they are willing to serve the country and the people, and will continue to serving in the government. But they won’t be serving in cabinet.”

Reaction

While the president was looking for “silver linings” in the dismissal of more than half his cabinet, Press Secretary for the President Mohamed Zuhair indicated that the rest of the executive was not quite as sanguine.

“The Supreme Court has returned the verdict that the opposition can use its ‘brute majority’, without citing any reasons for the disapprovals,” he said. “But it’s not the Supreme Court that refused consent, it was parliament, and people who were involved in the former dicatorship.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling, he said, had set a “disturbing precedent” for a any particularly vindictive majority opposition to perpetually refuse the appointment of ministers not of its choosing.

“Of all the ministers, [those disapproved] were the ones who had worked very hard to establish the Supreme Court and separation of powers, and do away with authorative power. And now it seems like the very same former establishment is punishing those forces,” Zuhair said.

He suggested that the opposition’s stubborness on the matter of endorsement by parliament, and lack of reasons giving for the dismissal of each minister, signalled a political grudge match “after they lost four key appointments when the cabinet resigned: the Chief Justice of the [interim] Supreme Court, who was known to be endorsed by them, the chief of the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM), who was also endorsed by them, chief of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) who was also endorsed by a DRP majority house, and the JSC Chief Mujthaz Fahmy, who appeared to be supportive of them. That may have rankled.”

“And there are other reasons – for instance, they have accused [Defence Minister] Ameen Faisal of involvement in the coup attempt of 1988, which he denies. [Former President] Gayoom’s judiciary at the time saw rebellion as a high crime, whereas in today’s multi-party democracy, someone going against the government is not a rebel.”

Deputy Leader and spokesperson for the DRP, Ibrahim Shareef, said the opposition was willing to give the President “the benefit of the doubt” and endorse any minister nominated, “as long as they can do the job.”

Shareef said it was too early to comment on whether the party would be endorsing the ministers currently pending parliamentary approval, including last night’s appointments to the Education and Home Affairs portfolios, Shifa Mohamed and Hassan Afeef.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court rules rejected ministers cannot remain in their positions

The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday night that the seven cabinet ministers not endorsed by the opposition-majority parliament cannot remain in their posts.

Delivering the verdict, Chief Justice Ahmed Faiz Hussein noted that the Constitution did not state what should happen to rejected ministers, requiring the Supreme Court to make an interpretation.

All Supreme Court judges – with the exception of Judge Muthasim Adnan – ruled that ministers required the endorsement of parliament as stated in the Constitution.

However, the ministers would not be immediately dismissed, and would remain “employees” of the President until new nominees were put forward to parliament by the President.

President Mohamed Nasheed said during this week’s radio address that he would respect the Supreme Court’s ruling.

“When the Supreme Court rules that cabinet ministers cannot remain in office without the approval [of the People’s Majlis], it is compulsory for the President to follow that ruling”, President Nasheed said, emphasising that this evidence of an judiciary independent from the government was “a great achievement for the democratic process of the country.”

Health Minister Dr Aiminath Jameel, Youth Minister Hassan Latheef, Economic Minister Mahmood Razi, Housing Minister Mohamed Aslam and Islamic Minister Dr Abdul Majeed Abdul Bari were approved by parliament on November 22, during a vote that was boycotted by MPs from the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

Seven ministers – Finance Minister Ali Hashim, Education Minister Dr Musthafa Luthfy, Foreign Minister Dr Ahmed Shaheed, Fisheries Minister Dr Ibrahim Didi, Home Minister Mohamed Shihab, Defence Minister Ameen Faisal and Attorney General Dr Ahmed Ali Sawad – did not receive a majority of votes from the 42 MPs in attendance.

Following the vote, Ahmed Thasmeen Ali, head of the opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), took the case to Supreme Court arguing that Ministers rejected by parliament should be dismissed from office.

Attorney General Dr Ahmed Ali Sawad was not responding to calls at time of press, but has previously said that “any interpretation [of the Constitution] whereby an appointed minister can be removed from his position by a simple majority, means that with parliament’s quorum of 20, 11 MPs can vote against cabinet and have ministers removed despite the constitution’s very detailed no confidence procedure.”

“Any interpretation that facilitates such instability in the political system is a very serious threat to our nation,” he stated.

The process of appointing cabinet members was criticised as ‘defective’ by Independent MP Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed, who claimed that the appointment process remained “beyond resolution” in such a highly partisan political environment.

“The [current] political environment is not conducive for a resolution within parliament,” he explained.

The cabinet resigned en masse in June protesting the “scorched-earth policies” of parliament, accusing the opposition majority of corrupt practices, deliberate obstruction and attempts to wrest executive control from the government.

Ministers were reappointed nine days later, making the cabinet vulnerable to the present ‘dismissal by procedure’.

The Supreme Court verdict is a firm rebuke to the government’s argument that approval of ministers by parliament is a “ceremonial” process and not tantamount to dismissal, and could be considered a victory for the opposition in retaliation for June’s publicity stunt.

However, the allowance for an unspecified interim period gives the government room to manoeuvre, and should Ministers remain in their posts as “employees”, is likely to spark fresh political turmoil over whether the government is adhering to the spirit of the ruling.

The ruling also increases pressure on the government to get the 2011 State Budget through parliament in the few remaining days of session before the end of the year.

The opposition has said it will not allow Finance Minister Ali Hashim to present the budget, however the government has argued that the budget was sent to parliament on December 1 and – against tradition – does not have to be presented in person.

Parliament’s regulations state that debate on the budget must commence within seven days of receiving the document and be decided upon seven days before the end of the year.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Maldives disputes allegations of US “climate bribe” to support Copenhagen Accord

The Maldivian government has hit back at allegations of “climate bribery” in international media this week, disputing claims that it pushed for US$50 million assistance from the US government in exchange for uneqivocally backing the Copenhagen Accord.

A leaked US diplomatic cable detailing an exchange between the Maldives Ambassador to the US, Abdul Ghafoor Mohamed and US Deputy Climate Change Envoy Jonathan Pershing on February 23, 2010, was described as a “diplomatic dance” by the UK’s Guardian newspaper.

“Ghafoor referred to several projects costing approximately US$50m. Pershing encouraged him to provide concrete examples and costs in order to increase the likelihood of bilateral assistance,” the Guardian quoted from the cable.

In response to growing criticism – including several questions on the subject directed at President Mohamed Nasheed during his appearance on BBC Hardtalk, the Maldivian government today released several diplomatic documents it claimed “show that the country pledged its support to the Copenhagen Accord unilaterally and without reservations on 19 December 2009, just hours after the climate change negotiations concluded in the Danish capital.”

In a letter dated December 19, 2009, Dr Shaheed writes to the Executive Secretary for the UN Framework Convention of Climate Change (UNFCCC) to “confirm that the Maldives supports and associates itself with the Copenhagen Accord of 18 December 2009.”

In a second letter, dated January 29, 2010, Dr Shaheed again writes to the Executive Secretary stating that “the Maldives’ submission of its mitigation actions is voluntary and unconditional. However we do wish to state, on the record, that the Maldives will be seeking international support for implementation, and that, at such a tie as we do, we are happy for our request to be recorded in the registry and for our mitigation actions to be internationally measured, reported and verified.”

In a statement released yesterday, Dr Shaheed dismissed as “smear” allegations “by some parties” that the Maldives had said it would only sign the Copenhagen Accord in exchange for US$50 million in assistance, and that the release of the letters was “in the interests of full disclosure” to prove that the Maldives supported the Copenhagen Accord on its own merits.

“In fact the Maldives was actively lobbying other parties, including the US, to associate with the Accord. Not the other way around,” Dr Shaheed said. “President Nasheed spent many hours late at night in the final Heads of State meeting which negotiated the Copenhagen Accord, working with other leaders to try to avoid a total collapse of the negotiations and to ensure that the interests of small island and vulnerable countries were protected.

“Having been so intimately involved in negotiating the document, it was natural that the Maldives signed up to the Accord immediately after the Copenhagen negotiations ended.”

The Maldives had led a “diplomatic offensive” to urge other countries to sign the Accord, Dr Shaheed noted. “To suggest, therefore, that the US somehow paid-off the Maldives to support the Accord defies all logic.”

“Some people are trying to spin this non-story into a scandal in order to undermine the progressive voices of small island states such as the Maldives,” he added.

“We are seeking to play a bridging role between rich and poor nations in the interests of getting a deal that will save our countries from a watery grave. But not everyone supports this effort.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Scotland partners with Maldives to assess marine energy potential

Scotland and the Maldives have announced a partnership to assess the island nation’s potential to develop wave, tidal and ocean thermal sources of renewable energy.

Marine energy remains relatively unexploited compared to the present adoption of wind and solar, but has significant advantages over the latter two in that ocean water movements are massive, predictable and consistent. The geological structure of the Maldives’ atolls and the country’s strong currents make it a natural candidate for the technology.

However large installations can impact currents and the ecosystems in which they are placed, are expensive and technologically nascent, and limited to certain sites.

Wave energy harnesses the kinetic energy of moving water to power an underwater turbine, feeding energy into a generator, and are generally used for small-scale applications.

Tidal energy, in contrast, traps water in a reservoir at high tide and then drains it through a turbine much like a hydroelectric dam. This requires a large difference between high and low tides and is location-specific, but can be deployed on a large-scale – one such plant in France powers 240,000 homes.

Ocean thermal energy generation meanwhile exploits the temperature differences between different ocean depths (surface temperatures are warmer due to the sun) to generate energy, but is comparatively expensive and requires advanced engineering.

Scotland is regarded as a world leader in both potential for and adoption of both wave and tidal power generation technology, with 10 agreements signed this year to produce a potential 1.2GW – enough power for 700,000 homes.

Under the agreement signed with the Maldives, Scotland’s Robert Gordon University will conduct an assessment of the wave, tidal and ocean thermal potential of the Maldives

The £48,000 (US$76,000) study will report in 2011 and lead to a joint exploitation of the resources by the two countries, supported by the European Union’s Support to Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation in the Maldives Fund, administered by the World Bank.

Maldives Environment Minister Mohamed Aslam said that as an island nation spread over a thousand kilometres of ocean, “I believe marine renewables hold enormous potential to make the Maldives an international energy leader in the zero-carbon economy of the future.

“If the Maldives can demonstrate that low carbon development is not just practical but also profitable, we hope larger countries will follow suit.”

Chairman of the Energy Technology Partnership, Professor Jim McDonald, an alliance of Scottish universities working on the project, he believed that the Maldives “has a significant potential marine energy resource and we look forward to contributing our world-class expertise to this project and delivering real value to both countries from this collaboration.”

Scottish Energy Minister Jim Mather noted that Scotland was at the forefront of developing the technology, as well as possessing a quarter of Europe’s wave [energy generation] potential, and with “significant planned investment in the sector”.

“This study is a most effective way to help the Maldives and let Scotland play its part in the urgent global need to move to a low carbon economy,” Mather said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Oregon legislators visit Maldives to share experience with Majlis members

Elected representatives from the Oregon state legislature visited the Maldives this week to hold workshops and discussions with the country’s parliament.

State Senator Jackie Dingfelder and State Representative Ben Cannon, both US Democrats, met with the media on Wednesday afternoon to explain their trip to “share experience” of working across party political lines to legislate effectively.

“We’ve heard concerns about the need for a stronger and more independent judiciary, we’ve heard about the need for independent non-partisan staff for parliament, and we’re heard about the need for greater transparency, and a more robust civil society, NGOs, media, and schools,” said Cannon.

The pair said they were “particularly struck” by the Youth Parliament held yesterday at Bandos Island Resort and Spa, where 50 young people have been “engaging and learning what it means to engage issues peacefully in a parliamentary setting.”

“Our goal [in the Maldives] is to share our understanding that under the system of separation of powers that the Maldivian constitution presents, each branch of government has a responsibility to help govern the country, not merely to undermine other branches of government,” Cannon said.

Practically, Dingfelder explained that the two hoped to bring a combined 14 years of experience in legislature to a discussion “of what does it means to work across party lines.’

“We are also talking [with MPs] about implementing and monitoring legislation – both of us work in committees, we’ve worked to pass climate change legislation and been successful at getting through large bills in a bipartisan manner, and following up to make sure legislation is implemented.”

A focus of the discussions, Dingfelder said, would “also be relationship building.”

“We’ve heard that not a not of legislation has been getting through because of fighting – this happens all over the world, it happens in the States, and it certainly happens at a state level.”

One technique for passing bills through a heavily-partisan legislature, she explained, was “to find out what is important to the other legislator. Find out what they would like to see, and come to a compromise in the middle. I start by saying ‘What your end goal?’, instead of: ‘Here’s what I want to do’.”

It was important, she said, for an elected legislator “to be a good listener and hear the other point of view, because if you go in with a closed line saying ‘It’s my way or the highway’, then it makes it harder to reach a compromise.”

Often, she explained, the end goals of both sides were same, and the differences “just about how to get there.”

“Put the campaign aside during session”

Cannon observed that it was important for legislators “to be willing to put the campaign aside – at least for a time.”

“I run every two years, that’s a lot of campaigning,” he said. “But for those six months we are in session, it cannot be primarily about the next elections. You have to believe that your adversaries are also working to further the best interests of the country.”

That, he said, did not mean the campaign goal disappeared – “it doesn’t go away in a democracy, but at least for a time our responsibility is to govern effectively.”

He noted that democracy in the Maldives was old two years old, “and it takes time to build the habits and institutions of effective governance. In the US it has taken us 230 years and we’re still at it. We have not perfected it.”

Many of the challenges facing legislators in the Maldives were the same as those still faced in the US, Cannon noted.

“Each point raised you can say about our own system. [Democracy] is a messy and conflict-ridden process, but we are hopeful that the people of the Maldives will give this experiment the time it needs to prove it is better than the alternatives.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

BBC Hardtalk grills Nasheed on economy, climate, human rights

President Mohamed Nasheed has been grilled on his adherence to human rights, the Maldives’ financial condition and its commitment to combating climate change on the BBC’s Hardtalk programme, broadcast this week in the UK.

Journalist Stephen Sackur observed that given the President’s history as an Amnesty International prisoner of conscience, “it is strange that you are now a president at loggerheads with parliament, and who has deployed the army to the streets to quell disturbances.”

Noting that the country had improved markedly in terms of freedom of expression, commitment to human rights and allowing political activities, Nasheed also acknowledged that “there are issues in our country.”

“We are a very young democracy and we are settling down, and we are consolidating democracy and we are going to face challenges. We are presently the only 100 percent Muslim multi-party democracy in the world,” he claimed.

Nasheed was also questioned by Sackur over the government’s arrest and detention of MPs.

In response, Nasheed denied the government had any say over who was charged, claiming that “the Prosecutor General’s office is an independent institution and I’m extremely glad they have dropped the charges.”

“Basically, we have the last dictatorship as the opposition,” he told Sackur. “[But] we do not want to destroy opposition through legal action, because then we will not have an opposition. I believe it will be best to bring about justice through the democratic process, and not necessarily by charging these people.”

How the government should deal with the former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom was “a major issue for us”, Nasheed said.

“In the past, our culture has been very ruthless [towards] former presidents. There has always been a circle and it’s hard to pull out of [it]. But the manner in which we deal with Gayoom’s shows us a path of how [we] move forward. I believe democracy will dispense justice better than a courtroom drama.”

Sackur also challenged Nasheed on the country’s financial position, noting that the IMF had delayed the third tranche of its assistance to the Maldives.

“[The IMF] wants the civil service reduced instantly, but we would snap if we did that,” Nasheed said. “We have to be politically mindful of what would happen after that. We inherited 30 years of dictatorship and a huge government – in the absence of political parties all a dictator can do is build up a huge civil service.”

Nasheed denied that the Maldives had negotiated a payment from the US in exchange for taking a prisoner from Guantanamo Bay, as suggested by recent leaked cables of US diplomatic exchanges.

“I don’t think there is substance [to those claims],” Nasheed responded. “We wanted to take a detainee before we came to government. We came to government on a human rights platform.”

On the subject of climate change, Nasheed said he was disappointed in both the Americans and the Chinese “for so irrelevantly talking about this issue as though it were arms control or trade negotiations. You cannot cut a deal with mother nature, or negotiate with planetary boundaries.”

But he noted improvement in so-called sustainable commitments being made by countries such as Brazil, South Africa and China in particular.  “I think the Chinese have gone a long way towards [investing] in renewables,” Nasheed added.

Asked by Sackur as to why the rest of the world should care about the fate of the Maldives, Nasheed responded that “what happens to the Maldives today happens to England tomorrow.”

Listen to the full programme on Radio 4 (English)

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Marine reserve a plan to keep out ‘Man Fridays’ and ‘sea gypsies’, reveals leaked US cable

The UK’s creation of the world’s largest marine park in the Indian Ocean has been exposed as less of an ecological project than a means to “put paid to resettlement claims of the archipelago’s former residents” and retain the area for military use.

The Chagos were forcibly evicted from the archipelago after the British bought it from Mauritius for £3 million (US$476,000) in 1965, with then-Mauritian Prime Minister, Seewoosagur Ramgoolam, receiving a knighthood the same year.

The island is presently occupied by the US base at Diego Garcia due to an agreement made in 1966 whereby the UK received favours, including a US$14 million discount on submarine-launched Polaris missiles, in exchange for use of the island until 2016.

The Chagos won a high court victory in the UK in 2000 enabling them to return to archipelago, but the decision was extraordinarily overruled by the Queen’s royal prerogative. In 2008, the House of Lords overturned the high court verdict, forcing the Chagos to appeal in the European court of human rights.

In April 2010, the UK declared the Chagos Archipelago a marine reserve – an area larger than France – theoretically making it the world’s largest marine protected area (MPA). Funds to manage the MPA for the next five years have been provided by Swiss-Italian billionaire Ernesto Bertarelli.

However, a leaked US Embassy cable dated May 5, 2009 and marked ‘NOFORN’, or ‘No foreigners’, the highest level of security among the 250,000 leaked cables, suggests the marine park was a calculated attempt by the UK Foreign Office to scuttle the resettlement claims of 3000 Chagos islanders in the European Court of human rights.

In the leaked US cable, Colin Roberts, the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s (FCO) Director of Overseas Territories, is quoted as saying that the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) has “served its role very well”.

“‘We do not regret the removal of the population,’ since removal was necessary for the BIOT to fulfill its strategic purpose, he said. Removal of the population is the reason that the BIOT’s uninhabited islands and the surrounding waters are in ‘pristine’ condition,” the cable read.

“Establishing a marine reserve might, indeed, as the FCO’s Roberts stated, be the most effective long-term way to prevent any of the Chagos Islands’ former inhabitants or their descendants from resettling in the BIOT.”

In the cable, Roberts emphasised that the establishment of the marine park would ensure it was reserved for military use and “would have no impact on how Diego Garcia is administered as a base.”

“‘We need to make sure the US government is comfortable with the idea. We would need to present this proposal very clearly to the American administration… All we do should enhance base security or leave it unchanged,”’ the leaked cable reports Roberts as saying.

“[Roberts] noted that the establishment of a marine reserve would require permitting scientists to visit BIOT, but that creating a park would help restrict access for non-scientific purposes. For example, he continued, the rules governing the park could strictly limit access to BIOT by yachts, which Roberts referred to as ‘sea gypsies’.”
As a result of the British government’s “current thinking” on the reserve, there would be “no human footprints” or “Man Fridays” on the uninhabited islands of the archipelago, Roberts stated in the cable.

‘Man Friday’ is the disparaging nickname given to a cannibalistic ‘black savage’ by castaway Robinson Crusoe, in the 1719 Daniel Defoe novel of the same name.
In response to concerns from US Political Counsellor Richard Mills that advocates of Chagossian resettlement might continue “to vigorously press their case”, Roberts replied that the UK’s “environmental lobby is far more powerful than the Chagossians’ advocates.”

Prior to their eviction, the Chagos were known to Maldivians in the southern atoll of Addu as they occasionally rescued a stranded fishermen who had strayed too far south. The islands themselves were never settled by Maldivians, although they retained the Dhivehi name of Feyhandheebu.

Second Secretary at the British High Commission in Colombo, Dominic Williams, told Minivan News in September that the UK believed a Marine Protected Area (MPA) “is the right way ahead for furthering the environmental protection of the Territory.”

The decision to establish the MPA was, he added, “without prejudice to the current pending proceedings at the European Court of Human Rights. As such, there is no need to wait for a decision from the European Court of Human Rights before implementing the MPA.”

“The establishment of this MPA has doubled the global coverage of the world’s oceans benefiting from protection and gives the UK the opportunity to preserve an area of outstanding natural beauty containing islands and reef systems rich in biodiversity.”

Both the US and UK have said they will not be discussing or verifying specific information contained in the leaked cables.

The Gibraltar Chronicle has meanwhile reported that Mauritius has summoned the UK’s top diplomat in the country to explain the marine park “smoke screen”.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

President of the Maldives visits Salisbury: Salisbury Journal

President of the Maldives Mohamed Nasheed visited Salisbury over the weekend prior to his return to the island nation yesterday, the Salisbury Journal newspaper has reported.

He was welcomed by UK Conservative Party MP John Glen and founder of the Friends of Maldives NGO, David Hardingham.

Salisbury was home to a group of Maldivian exiles for five years from 2003, and became the launch pad for their campaign for democracy, the newspaper reported.

Hardingham’s cottage in Friary Lane is now the Maldives’ Honorary Consulate.

Mr Glen was sent out to the island nation in 2007 and 2008 by the Westminster Foundation for Democracy to help the then-opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) draw up its manifesto.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)