From The Editors - Ascension Island News

The Island Council has been heartened by messages of support sent to various publications, and MPs expressing dismay at the FCO U Turn and the lack of consultation leading up to it. We wished to share some of them with you.............

The U-turn on Ascension Islanders' rights shows that military wishes mean more to the Foreign Office

Bringing democracy to parts of the world that cruise missiles never reach is a long job. As the new century dawned it was gratifying, therefore, to see democracy reach Ascension Island, one of the last relics of the British empire.

Ascension is 35 square miles of clinker, lying just south of the equator and 750 miles from St Helena. The Portuguese discovered it in 1501 but took little further interest. It has served the British well, though, since 1812, when the Royal Navy first occupied it to stop the French using it as a base from which to rescue Napoleon Bonaparte from St Helena.

The other "users" of the island are Cable & Wireless, which uses it for satellite communications; Merlin, which runs a satellite-tracking station for the European Space Agency; the BBC World Service, which has a relay station there; the RAF, which refuels Falklands flights there; the US military, which built an airstrip in the 40s; and the Composite Signals Organisation, part of GCHQ.

Life on Ascension is not to everybody's taste, but it has its attractions: chances to rub shoulders with operators of some the world's most sophisticated military electronics, to spot sooty terns and masked boobies, and to watch green turtles laying eggs on the beaches.

Then there are the US missile-testing nights. "As missiles reach their sell-by date," said a former administrator of the island, "they put them in a submarine off Florida and fire them at Ascension." The missiles are targeted to fall short, which, so far, they have. The timing of the tests is top secret, except to the well-informed local schoolchildren, who look forward eagerly to the fireworks.

What has this unusual community to do with the promotion of democracy? The population is about 1,100, of whom 350 are British or American. Most of the rest are originally from St Helena and came to the island for work. But now there are many native Ascension Islanders who consider it home, despite the fact that under present rules they must leave the island on retirement.

For most of its history, Ascension was run as a company island: even Foreign Office administrators had to beg funds from the users, who frequently refused. But in the 90s the FO decided to move towards a public-finance model. Ascension offered a chance for Britain to show that the lamentable treatment of the islanders of Diego Garcia, forcibly dispossessed by the UK in the 60s so the US military could use their homeland undisturbed, was a thing of the past.

Ascension would be neither Diego Garcia nor a company island. Taxation was introduced and representation followed. A seven-member island council was elected on November 1 2002 and has run the island's affairs well. With democracy came more promises from the British government - that the right of abode and the right to own property would be enshrined in new legislation. Delighted long-term residents spent money on their houses and invested in local businesses. Ascension set out gaily towards constitutional democracy and began to plan for tourist development.

But last month, without consultation, the Foreign Office announced that it no longer considered it "appropriate" to grant right of abode or property rights. This U-turn came after a visit to Ascension at the end of November by Foreign Office and MoD officials. In a statement of which Sir Humphrey would be proud, the FO acknowledged that the decision would not be "universally welcome", but said it was in the best interests of the island as a whole. The island council furiously disagrees.

Which of the island's many military and intelligence interests has blocked the rights

Britain

promised the people of Ascension has not been revealed. But for the UK government, it seems, the choice between the wishes of the military and democratic rights has been very easy.

Sir
Isabel Hilton makes a valid point in her article "No Place Like Home" (18 January). The Foreign Office are behaving disgracefully in their current dealings with the people of Ascension Island.

In 1999 the FCO commissioned a Fiscal and Economic Report (often referred to as the Portsmouth Report) on the Island. Published in 2000 and still available on the FCO website, the authors made various recommendations. The FCO accepted the public finance model as being the best way forward. To
that end they have helped and encouraged the residents to form a Council, introduce taxation, draw up a Land Registry and draft legislation to give those residents who so choose, the right to live on the island permanently. The Council have even made a start on a house building programme to alleviate a desperate shortage of family (rather than barrack) accommodation and the residents have spent money on their own accommodation and on developing small businesses.

With generous FCO support the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) embarked on a programme to eradicate feral cats which were seriously predating the seabirds of the South Atlantic, some of them seriously endangered. The programme has been remarkably successful - the feral cats are gone and in only four years seabirds have started to breed on Ascension again, something that some thought was beyond hope. It is a serious conservation success of world-class proportions and everyone connected with
it including the FCO and the British Government, should take great pride in it. But conservation programmes need people to carry them out and maintain them. If the FCO drives the people away by refusing them the right of abode on the island and the ensuing confidence of a secure future there, conservation will suffer too.

In September 2005 the FCO commissioned a further Economic Study which seems less easily available than the Portsmouth Report - I see no copy on the FCO website. When I spoke to an FCO official about the U turn they proposed recommending to Ministers, I was told that the FCO "had changed its mind".
They were concerned about contingent liabilities - which are no greater now than when the FCO embarked on the public finance model in 2000. Moreover in their three years of existence the Council have acquitted themselves well - they have a balanced budget and have been able to start putting money into reserves. FCO officials have given no thought for the people of Ascension or their feelings about being so cruelly misled by the proposed reversal in policy. As a former Administrator of Ascension Island who helped the
islanders start down the public finance road towards democracy, I urge the Foreign Secretary and Lord Triesman, the Minister responsible for the Overseas Territories, not to allow the FCO officials to treat the people of Ascension in such a cavalier way. No-one should be treated thus and as British Citizens they have a right to be treated properly by the British Government.

Geoff Fairhurst

As the authors of the 'Portsmouth Report' on Ascension Island for the Foreign Office, published in 2000 we are extremely concerned about the recent UK government policy reversal mentioned in Isabel Hilton's article (18 January 2006, 'No place like home').

Our Report recommended a move to a civil society, with taxation and representation for islanders. This was accepted by the Foreign Office and a local government was set up. A draft land register was prepared to allow property ownership and small businesses encouraged to diversify this micro economy with its tiny civilian population. Islanders invested their own funds in small businesses. The UK reached agreement with the US authorities who operate the airbase on the island to allow civilian flights, opening up commercial possibilities, including lucrative niche tourism to this volcanic island with its unusual vegetation, splendid bird life and nesting turtles.

Now the Foreign Office has apparently 'changed its mind' and appears to be ignoring the wishes of the democratically elected Ascension Island Council by reversing the moves to normalise the island and allow permanent residence and property rights. Many islanders believe that the Foreign Office would like to depopulate the island rather than let it grow and develop into a functioning small economy.

Why was there no consultation with islanders and their democratically elected Island Council over such a fundamental change? Why after accepting the major recommendations of the 'Portsmouth Report' and then spending significant public funds on this, has the FCO decided to do a U-turn? What (if anything) has materially changed since 2000 that makes any sense of this? If 'strategic considerations' of the military use of Ascension are paramount, then surely this should be discussed openly as it involves large sums of British taxpayers' money?

We are concerned that, despite its obligations to the UK Overseas Territories, the Foreign Office may be sleepwalking into another Diego Garcia situation as, once again, British islanders' basic democratic rights are being overidden by London.

Ascension Island, a small volcanic outpost of the British Empire, is about to become yet another blot on the record of the present government.The St Helenian people, who are British Citizens, and mainly man this "working island" are to be deprived of a promised "right of abode" and forced to leave what for many has become their homes and businesses. Up to the present families have been forced to split as children over 16, who do not obtain employment like their parents on the island, have been made to return to the mother island of St Helena two days boat trip away. St Helena itself suffers from high unemployment and low wages which is why the Saints (as they are known) travelled to Ascension for better pay in the first place.

In the late 90s the British Government agreed to the island having it's own council with a view to building up the infrastructure of the island to encourage and support tourism and private enterprise.

Many islanders invested their life savings in shops, a garage, bakery etc believing that the British Government would keep it's word to work towards a right of abode and property ownership which had not existed before.

Now the British Government, without any consultation with the island council, have stated that they deem it inappropriate to grant these rights.How can we treat loyal British Citizens in this cavalier manner ? Is this to be another Diego Garcia where people were ridden over roughshod ?

Having worked on the island and grown to love it and its people we are thoroughly ashamed of our Government.

Dear Sir,

We in the UK Chagos Support Association are appalled to see this government going down the same duplicitous route with the Ascension Islanders that they did with the islanders of Diego Garcia and the whole Chagos Archipelago. It took the FCI four decades after exiling the Chagossians to even admit there HAD been an indigenous population. (www.chagossupport.org.uk) Is there a hook by the front door of the Foreign and Commenwealth Office where people hang up their moral sense and honesty when they arrive at work?

Sincely

Celia Whittaker.

Comment on Current Affairs from Kent Business School sent to various publications

Another Diego Garcia own goal for Britain? Foreign Office U-turn for Ascension Island. 18 January 2006.

Dr. Mark Hampton , Senior Lecturer , Kent Business School, University of Kent

Ascension Island is a British Overseas Territory, very small, with a population of 1000. The island is about the size of Jersey and is famous for its rare seabirds, nesting Green Turtles and a large number of volcanoes. Its main activities are military and communications. It has an airbase (used to re-supply the Falklands garrison), an EU space tracking station, BBC World Service transmitters and GCHQ communications equipment.

Dr Mark Hampton led a major Foreign Office study in 2000 (the Portsmouth Report) that recommended a move to a civil society, with taxation and representation for islanders. Both major policy changes were accepted by the FCO creating a local government (Island Council). A draft land register was prepared to allow property ownership and small businesses encouraged to diversify this micro economy. Islanders invested in this. The UK reached agreement with the US authorities who operate on the island to allow civilian flights, opening up commercial possibilities including lucrative niche tourism etc.

Now the Foreign Office has apparently 'changed its mind' and appears to be overriding the wishes of the democratically elected Ascension Island Council by reversing the moves to normalise the island and allow permanent residence and property rights. It is a popular belief that the Foreign Office would like to depopulate the island rather than let it grow and develop into a functioning economy.

There has been little consultation with Ascension inhabitants who are British subjects. It is not clear why this policy U-turn has taken place, perhaps influenced by the

government or the UK Ministry of Defence?

Is the Foreign Office facing the international embarrassment of another Diego Garcia? Once again, British islanders' basic democratic rights are being ignored by London. Dr Hampton is in contact with the Foreign Office but it is still unclear what is driving this complete policy reversal.

Why was there no consultation with islanders and their democratically elected Island Council over such a fundamental change? Why after accepting the major recommendations of the 'Portsmouth Report' and then spending significant public funds on this, has the FCO decided to do a U-turn on this? What (if anything) has materially changed since 2000 that makes any sense of this? If 'strategic considerations' of the military use of Ascension are paramount, then surely this should be discussed openly as it involves large sums of British taxpayers' money?

This policy change is not an academic argument. It involves British people on Ascension Island who have a right to fair treatment by the UK. They believed what the FCO told them and started investing their own money into local business ventures. If the rules of the game change without their say, then they have been badly let down by the UK government. Ultimately, under international law, the UK is responsible for 'good governance' in its remaining Overseas Territories. Sadly, this reversal exemplifies a democratic country treating its people most unfairly.

I am writing about the issue of right of abode on Ascension , since it has recently been brought to the RSPB’s attention that the UK Government has proposed a u-turn in its policy on this island. The RSPB understands a final decision on the issue will be made by yourself and hopes you will take the following into consideration:

In 1999, the issue was raised in the White Paper, Partnership for Progress and Prosperity in the Overseas Territories. It was proposed that Ascension should move towards self-determination and a democratically elected government. In 2000, a study was conducted by consultants, which presented to the UK Government various options for the future of the island. The UK Government selected the public finance option, which resulted in the introduction of taxation in April 2001 and the first elected council in November 2001. Michael Bradley QC was employed by your Department to develop policy and draft legislation on the right of abode and land tenure. Until November 2005, people on Ascension believed they would have a right to residency, and, on this basis, a number of them have invested in local businesses.

The RSPB is very concerned about the implications that any u-turn in UK Government policy will have on conservation of Ascension’s biodiversity. Since 2001 and with significant funding from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, we have implemented a seabird restoration project on Ascension. There has been considerable international interest in this, since it is the first time that feral cat eradication has been attempted on a large island with a significant human population, while retaining domestic cats. In delivering the project, we have relied on and received the goodwill and co-operation of Ascension’s population. The Island Council itself has been extremely supportive. Although the Islanders endured substantial inconveniences in the short-term, they envisaged that the return of seabirds would attract tourists to the island and contribute to the future development of their economy.

But none of this can happen without the support from the local community. With the proposed reversal in UK policy to Ascension, many of he islanders we have worked with now feel they have been misled. Since under the new proposals, islanders will lose their stake in the future of the island and its environment, it is perhaps not surprising that taxpayers on Ascension are now beginning to question the value of continuing to support the Centre. Were this to happen probably most of the gains for conservation built up over the past years will be lost.

In recognition of all the significant conservation gains that have been made since 2001, and the support from the community for these improvements in their environment, the RSPB sincerely hopes that your decision will favour permanent residence on Ascension.

UK and the UK Overseas Territories (see bottom of page). UKOTCF also acts as partner and advisor to your Department and DFID in respect of the UKOTs. We have also had a long-standing partnership with FCO and the Islanders in Ascension in initiating and achieving major environmental progress there. We were alarmed to hear recently of a proposed reversal in HMG policy to Ascension, which – if you accept that proposal – would have a profound negative effect on this environment of global importance. In view of our long partnership with your Department in relation to Ascension, we were extremely surprised not to have been consulted, nor even advised, of this fundamental issue until a very late stage (yesterday). Our concern is strengthened in that we are now aware that the huge environmental consequences were not taken into consideration by your advisers or their consultants. We urge you to take the time to secure full and qualified advice on this matter and to reject this ill-advised proposal. For much of the last century Ascension was essentially a “company town”. However, in the late 1990s, the companies indicated to HMG that, with changing needs, they would no longer run the island. HMG commissioned a study of options, leading to a widely commended report produced in March 2000 by the University of Portsmouth. The consultants identified two options for the future of Ascension. One model “modified status quo” would lead to further population decline and social decay, and would also give extra problems to St Helena. The other “public finance” option involved a move to a more normal system of government and economy, with an elected council, the introduction of property rights, right of abode (including for those born on Ascension, who were previously deported by HMG at age 18), opportunities for self-employment and investment in new business, and the opening of the airport to more civilian traffic. HMG accepted the report and, to widespread approval of their announcement in 2001, decided on the “public finance” option. A first Council was elected, and some businesses were sold to local inhabitants. Whilst many in our network have strong views in relation to the human rights of Ascension Islanders, my remit here is to concentrate on the consequences for the internationally important environment, for which UK has treaty commitments. Prior to HMG’s announcement of its mplementation of the “public finance” package, it had proven impracticable to progress the major conservation initiatives needed to fulfil UK’s conservation obligations. With the changes announced, public “ownership” of the issues on Ascension became strong. Ascension is now world renowned as benefiting from the largest, and possibly most successful, environmental project in the UK Overseas Territories. This was implemented jointly by Ascension personnel, HMG and the UKOTCF partners (led in this case by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds). Indeed, in the recent independent review of the ground-breaking joint FCO/DFID Overseas Territories Environment Programme, your officials recommended that the independent consultants take Ascension as the most positive example UKOT. This was based, for example, on: The seabird restoration programme noted above. The establishment, by popular support after only 3 years of self-government, of Green Mountain National Park, and wide agreement on a suite of other proposed protected areas. The establishment by Ascension Island Government of a Conservation Department and Centre and exemplary participation of local volunteers. Effective conservation of one of the world’s largest marine turtle nesting populations, and development of associated tourist facilities. Several other projects on the species of plants and animals found nowhere else in the world. Contrary to the views expressed to us by your officials, conservation of such areas which have previously been impacted by human activity requires continued management and commitment at a local level; an empty island will not work except in a near pristine situation. Already, the news of your officials’ recommendation to you is undermining that commitment. If your decision were to follow that advice, the huge and world recognised successes of HMG in Ascension will be reversed. Because of HMG’s international commitments, the consequent direct cost to HMG of undertaking the remedial programmes would be extremely high – costs which were not taken into account in developing your officials’ recommendation. In addition to the cost implications for HMG in respect of Ascension, there would be an immense cost to UK’s reputation across the world. Your officials are making great progress in many developing countries in facilitating democratic processes through environmental awareness and participation: so-called “environmental democracy”. If you were to decide to return Ascension to a near-feudal state, this will be undermined. As I noted, we are sure that the recommendation for a U-turn is ill-founded and wrong. The process by which it has been reached is also inadequate. It is clear that your own environmental staff were not aware of this process. The officials involved in the review do not have environmental expertise. They did not consult UKOTCF or its members, who have been FCO’s partners and stake-holders in this area – nor any other external environmental bodies. We have had only a few hours to look at the consultants’ report received by your officials over 3 months ago, but already we have detected factual errors in the report and misleading information in its terms of reference. We note also that the procedures adopted to bring forward the recommendation to you are in breach of at least 5 of the 11 Commitments in the Environment Charter between HMG and Ascension (as well as other UKOTs) prepared by FCO and signed for HMG by an FCO Minister. As your officials are aware, UKOTCF prefers to work by quiet consultation with your Department. However, the failure to involve us, your partners, and the time-scale imposed upon us by your staff mean that we cannot follow this usual practice. I am copying this letter to Parliamentary bodies with an interest.

Ascension : Letters of support - FCO U TurnSubmitted by The Islander (Jacqui Ellick) 26.01.2006 (Article Archived on 09.02.2006)

Ascension : Letters of support - FCO U Turn
Submitted by The Islander (Jacqui Ellick) 26.01.2006 (Article Archived on 09.02.2006)