SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"We remain powerless and voiceless in determining our own future and the future of our homeland," one diaspora Chagossian said in response to the agreement.
Activists on Thursday decried a deal under which the United Kingdom will cede sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius with the exception of Diego Garcia, an island from which the Indigenous Chagossian people were forcibly expelled over half a century ago to make way for one of the world's largest and most important U.S. military bases.
The agreement—which was announced Thursday by the U.K. and Mauritius governments—grants the latter full sovereignty over the remote Indian Ocean archipelago, while allowing the United States and Britain to keep the joint base on Diego Garcia for the next 99 years. Under the deal, Mauritius authorities will facilitate Chagossians' eventual resettlement of the archipelago, with the apparent glaring exception of Diego Garcia.
"Following two years of negotiation, this is a seminal moment in our relationship and a demonstration of our enduring commitment to the peaceful resolution of disputes and the rule of law," a joint statement published by the U.K. and Mauritius governments states. "Negotiations have been conducted in a constructive and respectful manner, as equal sovereign states, on the basis of international law, and with the intention of resolving all outstanding issues between the United Kingdom and Mauritius concerning the Chagos Archipelago, including those relating to its former inhabitants."
"The treaty will address wrongs of the past and demonstrate the commitment of both parties to support the welfare of Chagossians," the statement adds. "Mauritius will now be free to implement a program of resettlement on the islands of the Chagos Archipelago, other than Diego Garcia, and the U.K. will capitalize a new trust fund, as well as separately provide other support, for the benefit of Chagossians."
U.S. President Joe Biden welcomed what he called the "historic agreement," which he said represents a "clear demonstration that through diplomacy and partnership, countries can overcome long-standing historical challenges to reach peaceful and mutually beneficial outcomes."
Some Chagossians also welcomed the deal. Isabelle Charlot, chair of the Chagos Islanders Movement, told BBC Radio 4 that the agreement gave her hope that her family could return to "a place that we can call home, where we will be free."
Other Chagossians decried the deal. The advocacy group Chagossian Voices—which is based in Crawley in West Sussex, England—said in a statement:
Chagossian Voices deplore the exclusion of the Chagossian community from the negotiations which have produced this statement of intent concerning the sovereignty of our homeland. Chagossians have learned this outcome from the media and remain powerless and voiceless in determining our own future and the future of our homeland. The views of Chagossians, the Indigenous inhabitants of the islands, have been consistently and deliberately ignored and we demand full inclusion in the drafting of the treaty.
"We remain powerless and voiceless in determining our own future and the future of our homeland," Chagossian Voices founding member Frankie Bontemps told the BBC.
Diego Garcia was once home to around 1,500 Creole-speaking Chagossians and their beloved dogs. However, in the 1960s the U.S. convinced Britain to grant it full control there and subsequently began to "sweep" and "sanitize" the atoll of its Indigenous population, in the words of one American official.
"We must surely be very tough about this," one British official privately wrote, adding that "there will be no Indigenous population except seagulls."
Many Chagossians were tricked or terrorized into leaving. U.S. Marines told them they'd be bombed if they didn't evacuate, and Chagossians' dogs were gassed to death with fumes from military vehicles. The islanders were permitted to take just one suitcase with them. Most were shipped to Mauritius, where they were treated as second-class citizens and where many ended up living in poverty and heartbreak in the slums of the capital, Port Louis.
Meanwhile—and without any apparent sense of irony—the U.S. military dubbed the new Halliburton-built base on Diego Garcia Camp Justice. In addition to launching an unknown number of attacks on countries including Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq from Diego Garcia during the ongoing so-called War on Terror, the U.S. military also dumped large amounts of human sewage into a protected coral lagoon on the atoll, belying British claims of commitment to ecological stewardship.
The forced displacement of the Chagossians was largely hidden from the U.S. and British public. However, the Chagossians never stopped fighting for justice. Britain's High Court of Justice twice ruled that their removal was illegal. In 2010, WikiLeaks published a secret U.S. diplomatic cable exposing nefarious intentions—denying Chagossians their right of return—behind the establishment of a marine reserve around the atoll.
In 2019, the International Court of Justice in The Hague issued an advisory opinion that the U.K. was exercising "illegal" sovereignty over Diego Garcia and urged the British government to "decolonize" the atoll by handing sovereignty to Mauritius, whose government long contended it was forced to cede control in order to secure its own independence from Britain.
Responding to the new agreement, Human Rights Watch (HRW) said Thursday that while the deal will "address the wrongs against the Chagossians of the past," it "looks like it will continue the crimes long into the future."
"It does not guarantee that the Chagossians will return to their homeland, appears to explicitly ban them from the largest island, Diego Garcia, for another century, and does not mention the reparations they are allowed to rebuild their future," HRW senior legal adviser Clive Baldwin said in a statement.
About 17,000 people were forced to evacuate after a fire at a pool treatment plant sent toxic smoke into the surrounding area.
With emergency teams in Georgia strained by the aftermath of Hurricane Helene, a separate disaster unfolded Sunday in the city of Conyers, about 25 miles east of Atlanta, after a small fire at a pool treatment plant sent a huge plume of chemical-laden smoke billowing across the area and forced more than 90,000 people to evacuate or shelter in place.
The fire broke out early Sunday on the roof of a plant owned by BioLab, which makes pool and spa treatment products, and was under control within several hours.
But the incident caused water to mix with a water-reactive chemical and created the massive plume of dark smoke, which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state officials said contained "the harmful irritant chlorine."
About 17,000 people were ordered to evacuate their homes Sunday, and a shelter-in-place order was still in effect Monday for about 90,000 residents of Rockdale County.
County Fire Chief Marian McDaniel said at a news conference that the smoke could remain in the area for "several days."
Schools in nearly DeKalb and Newton Counties announced closures and canceled outdoor activities on Monday, and some roads and county offices were also forced to shut down. A nearby hospital also moved patients to other facilities as a precaution, CNN reported.
On Sunday the fire led authorities to close an eight-mile stretch of Interstate 20, which was reopened on Monday.
According to the EPA, exposure to high levels of chlorine can cause chest pain, vomiting, toxic pneumonitis, and pulmonary edema, which lower exposure levels can irritate the eyes, lungs, and upper respiratory tract.
The smoke plume disrupted daily life in the area days after hundreds of households were ordered to evacuate two towns in the Cincinnati area last week due to a leak of styrene, a toxic chemical that can affect the nervous system, from a railcar.
Michael Esealuka, an environmental justice organizer in the U.S. South, noted on the social media platform X that the fire in Conyers led to the fifth chemical disaster in the month of September.
As Common Dreams reported last year, there were at least 287 hazardous chemical incidents in the first 10 months of 2023 in the U.S.—working out to nearly one per day—that killed 43 people and forced more than 190 communities to evacuate.
Another toxic plume from the BioLab plant in Conyers forced nearby businesses to evacuate and a portion of Interstate 20 to close in September 2020, as well as exposing firefighters and workers at the facility to "dangerous fumes."
Under the Clean Water Act, the agency should protect our water from harmful factory farm pollution, but the agency’s regulations have been failing for decades to achieve the act’s most basic requirements.
By design, factory farms generate stunning amounts of waste from the thousands or even millions of animals they confine. And while the industry swears it treats that waste “responsibly,” neighboring communities know otherwise.
Under the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should protect our water from harmful factory farm pollution. But the agency’s regulations have been failing for decades to achieve the act’s most basic requirements, a fact that EPA admits.
According to the agency’s own data, roughly 10,000 of the nation’s largest factory farms, also known as concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), are illegally discharging dangerous pollution to waterways without the required federal permit. As a result, we’re facing a pollution crisis of epic proportions, threatening our drinking water, health, and environment.
When allowed to handle their waste cheaply, with little regard for the toll on people and the environment, their profit margins soar.
So in 2017, we led dozens of allies to petition EPA to strengthen its regulations to ensure all polluting CAFOs have Clean Water Act permits that effectively protect waterways as the law requires. When it denied our petition and refused to act, we sued.
A host of industry groups representing factory farm interests intervened in the case to defend EPA’s refusal to act. This comes as no surprise, as the industry has long peddled misleading arguments and downright lies to preserve the status quo. That’s because factory farms reap huge benefits from the lack of regulation. When allowed to handle their waste cheaply, with little regard for the toll on people and the environment, their profit margins soar.
This September, I countered those arguments in person before the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, explaining why EPA must strengthen its CAFO regulations to safeguard our water and our health.
Here’s the truth behind three false claims industry is pushing:
In their brief, industry groups claim that “modern feeding operations are designed and engineered to produce healthy animals and minimize environmental impacts from manure.” This is patently false. The industry employs—and EPA’s lax regulations allow— the cheapest waste management practices possible, with little concern for public health or the environment.
For instance, factory farms store millions of gallons of waste in open cesspools that are designed to leak, threatening drinking water. And because hauling waste away is expensive, they dump as much as they can onto nearby fields, where it runs off into waterways.
We, the scientific community, and EPA all know that lax regulations have fueled the current factory farm pollution crisis.
This is a main reason why CAFOs’ waste is such a big threat to our water. They claim they’re using this waste to fertilize crops, but in reality, they apply far more than the land or plants can absorb. It’s also common practice to dump waste on land that has no hope of absorbing any of it, including fields frozen solid in the dead of winter.
There is a trove of scientific literature documenting all of this, and even EPA concedes that its faulty regulations are to blame. Yet, EPA claims it lacks enough information to improve its regulations. This reasoning is frankly ridiculous, especially since the agency admitted it had not even reviewed the thousands of pages of scientific and government data we gave to it when we submitted our petition, including research it conducted itself.
In their brief, industry groups aim to sow doubt on this topic, but we, the scientific community, and EPA all know that lax regulations have fueled the current factory farm pollution crisis.
The industry also defended an EPA rule that has created a loophole enabling thousands of CAFOs to circumvent the law. Under the Clean Water Act, polluting facilities must get a permit that requires them to limit and monitor their pollution discharges.
However, since 2003 EPA has chosen to interpret the statute in a way that exempts a huge portion of factory farm pollution from regulation. This “agricultural stormwater” exemption has also allowed the vast majority of factory farms to evade permitting requirements altogether, even for pollution that doesn’t fall under the exemption.
So we’re not surprised that the industry is determined to preserve this loophole. In its brief, it falsely claims that federal law requires EPA to apply this exemption to CAFOs. But in fact, the congressional and regulatory records make clear that legislators never intended for the exemption to apply to CAFOs or their waste disposal practices, and EPA understood that.
Contrary to industry claims, EPA applied this exemption to factory farms by its own discretion; the law did not compel them to. Now, in the face of substantial evidence that thousands of operations are exploiting this free pass, EPA can and must narrow the exemption and place stringent regulations on polluting factory farms, as Congress intended.
Finally, industry groups argue that the current regulatory regime is working. They even point to Iowa and North Carolina as shining success stories for manure management. What they fail to mention is that these states have some of the worst factory farm-polluted waters in the country, because state regulators allow these operations to pollute with impunity. In fact, these states have laws that prohibit their environmental agencies from passing factory farm water pollution regulations more stringent than EPA’s.
EPA itself admits its primary pollution control strategy, “nutrient management plans,” are inadequate. For decades, the agency has assumed these plans minimize pollution runoff from fields applied with manure. That’s what the industry would like us to believe, too. But the truth is—as EPA recently acknowledged—nutrient management plans don’t do enough to protect against pollution because that’s not even their main focus.
The reality is that the status quo is not protecting rural communities from harmful factory farm pollution.
Instead, they prioritize “maximizing crop growth” where manure is applied. To fulfill its obligations under the Clean Water Act, EPA must stop pretending that nutrient management plans are a silver bullet for factory farm pollution.
The reality is that the status quo is not protecting rural communities from harmful factory farm pollution. Weak state regulations matter even less when the national permit program—the bedrock of factory farm pollution regulation—isn’t effective. EPA can and must overhaul its factory farm regulations.
EPA’s foot-dragging is welcome news to the factory farm industry. Under the agency’s current regulations, factory farms can continue cutting costs through irresponsible manure handling. They can dump the costs of their waste onto their neighbors, leaving rural communities with undrinkable water, health problems, and devastated quality of life.
This needs to change. EPA must stop toeing the industry line and finally stop this pollution.
Arguing before the court in September, EPA agreed the factory farm pollution problem was severe, but it swore up and down it was taking it seriously, pointing to an ongoing study Food & Water Watch forced the agency to launch through other litigation and an advisory committee it convened after denying our petition.
However, these are simply delay tactics. The study focuses narrowly on pollution standards that only apply to permitted factory farms, even though the heart of the problem is that thousands of factory farms don’t have permits to begin with. To add insult to injury, the study group is controlled by industry representatives. It’s simply not believable that the study process will lead to stronger environmental protections.
EPA’s weak arguments underscore what we’ve known for years: to address this pollution crisis, the agency must step up and strengthen its regulations. Not only do suffering communities need EPA to do its job, but the law demands it.