The lease agreement with the US meant that in turn for the base, the UK would receive Trident nuclear submarine launched ballistic missiles. One of the hitorically more unique lease payments.
@@jaymareachealee3351 what crime did britain commit to obtain these islands? because you clearly have no knowledge of the situation, nor did you watch the damn video your commenting on
I did two tours of duty at Diego Garcia. Used to sleep on the fishing peer at night in a lawn chair with my fishing pole tethered so I would not lose it. Beautiful island.
I spent 13 months at Dodge (Diego Garcia). It was like living in a real M*A*S*H tv episode. A lot of boredom, booze and brawls. The Brits on the island didn’t do much but raise and lower the Union Jack. Many were Royal Marines on their final duty before leaving the service. Some had PTSD issues from the Falklands and Northern Ireland. Always at the end of the shop chain with rejected food items from other bases. The Aussies gave us the greatest gift for Christmas, fresh milk.
Not going to comment on if they should but I think they aren’t. They are just too damn valuable strategically to the UK and US. The islands are only a couple days sailing away from the straight of Malacca which is vital for China’s international trade. If the US wants it kept in UK hands then that’s the issue dealt with and in all honesty I can’t see the international community throwing a riot over this. Just my thoughts
@@missm10 Idk if you intended that to be sarcastic but unironically no, the military complex ought to dig their heels in, especially with China threatening active war with western allies.
@@gavinstuart6704 Well yeah but the people who want the islands now aren't the people you forced out. Not only have they been completely excluded from the negotiations but most of them went to the Seychelles after being kicked out in the first place.
The United Nations in theory is a litmus test. If you engage in an activity how many people would be against you. The problem is that there is no real threat. There is no real dividing line. So it is a weak litmus test unless all the big players can agree on something. The UN is a massive sideshow.
The UN was created by the US, UK, USSR and China as a way for the great powers to have a forum to communicate and facilitate humanitarian aid. It was *never* meant to solve all the world’s problems, and the great powers could only be bound by the UN if they all agreed. It’s why the great powers have Veto power, and why they have the ability to ignore the UN.
The who now? Area's uninhabited besides military personel. That was kinda the point in 1965: To prevent any racist fools from using a handful of villages as a pretext for an invasion against the UK.
Many people know this. Problem is most self righteous westerners who likes to look down on non westerners for "being oppressive" or "authotorian" are like, one of the most guilty of said accusations @@Jabberstax
The problem is, NO ONE is advocating self-determination for the Chagossians. The UN thinks it's "decolonisation" to force them into a political union with Mauritius whether or not they actually want it. If they do want it, so be it. But if they don't, the UN's demand to decolonise is simply a demand for colonisation by different masters.
Regardless of who the US ends up paying rent to for Diego Garcia, I feel sorry for the Chagossians and wish Sunak had at least ensured the people we dispossessed had an avenue to full British citizenship.
@@burnsyd17they were descendants of slaves by my understanding and obviously people were born on the island, so like someone commented, I think GB is obligated to take these people in.
I'm really loving these blurbs with additional information in the visuals! Imo thing to do for a presentation of this format - use the visuals not just as elucidation for what's being said, but to drop some extra data too.
Uhm, Mauritian here. The reason why Olivier Bancoult (a Mauritian) is trying to claim back the Chagos is because, well, he was born there and was forcibly removed at age four along with his family. Most Chagossians are Mauritians. Some of them gave up and accepted a British passport in exchange for shutting up, which is their right. Others led a delegation to the United Nations International Court of Justice and fight for the right to decide what to do with their homeland. As a Mauritian born, this fight is definitely not mine but these guys are our adopted brothers now and well, whatever Bancoult and the rest of the refugees decide is what we're going to do. The UK certainly didn't side with the Chagossians and the US doesnt want any native staying close to their stuff. The Mauritian government is full of venal opportunists though and are much closer to India than China but well, Chagossian-born Mauritians can vote on which Mauritian scumbag will fight their case. They have been denied a vote on UK politics for 55 years now. Chagossians certainly didn't have a great time in Mauritius, we were all poor and struggling back then but we managed as a whole to improve and somehow become the most successful country of Africa according to many websites. I doubt that. But Chagossians didnt take off as well as the other communities of ex-slaves or indentured labourers. Maybe it's because they were forcibly uprooted from their home and sent to a broke-ass foreign country where they didn't quite speak the language and didn't have land, money or jobs where their skills as fishermen would be of use. The very young natives did much better because they could go to school. Bancoult for example, is an electrician by trade. In any case, Mauritians certainly don't have the weapons or nukes. The least we can do is to sue the UK while knowing full well that its mostly hopeless if the UK and the US think they're above justice.
They already took the case to court and the Uk and us ignored it. As for us thinking we are above the law many countries just ignore the international courts or don’t implement resolutions it’s sadly normal
International law says that when given independence ex colonies should retain their colonial borders, similar to how ex Soviet states like Ukraine retained their borders after independence
@@SaintGerbilUK It was a part of the Colony of Mauritius and it should have been a part of the independent Republic of Mauritius The islands need to be returned to Mauritius and the islanders allowed to return or be compensated
_in 1965, the UK essentially bought the Chagos islands off Mauritius for £3 million via the Lancaster House agreement_ Paragraph 22 of the Record of the Meeting held at Lancaster House in the afternoon of 23 September 1965 states, in subparagraph (iii), that 'compensation totalling up to £3 [million] should be paid to the Mauritius Government over and above direct compensation to landowners and the cost of resettling others affected in the Chagos Islands', and, in subparagraph (vii), 'that if the need for the facilities on the islands disappeared the islands should be returned to Mauritius'. If the UK committed itself to returning the archipelago, it means that it did not buy it. The 'compensation' is for depriving Mauritius of what both parties agree as being part of Mauritius's territory for an indefinite, but not unlimited, period of time. _the General Assembly passed a number of resolutions criticising the move, but these were essentially _*_ignored by_*_ both the UK and _*_Mauritius_* Are you suggesting that a colony, which did not have its own voice at the UNGA, was, against the wishes of the latter, happily having what it considers to be part of its territory taken away from it? _Mauritius's fishing industry was diminished after the UK declared the Chagos Archipelago a protected area in 2010_ Do you actually not see how that statement does not make sense? The seas around the archipelago have never been part of Mauritius's EEZ for the notion of EEZs only came into existence in 1982 with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Whatever fishing takes place in those seas, if any, is by, or with the permission of, the UK rather than Mauritius, and, thus, has no bearing whatsoever on Mauritius's fishing industry. In any case, the marine protected area has been unanimously declared illegal by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2015. _accusing the Mauritian government of consistently ignoring Chagossian interests. Chagossians have been conspicuously excluded from the negotiation process by Mauritius and the report claims that most Chagossians are, at best, ambivalent about Mauritius's claim_ Chagossians were part of the Mauritian delegation at the International Court of Justice in September 2018 and made a poignant oral statement in favour of Mauritius. Chagossians were also part of the Mauritian government's expedition to the archipelago in February 2022. These sound neither like exclusion nor like ambivalence.
Please rememnber that Wilson was the prime minister of the UK when the stealing of Diego Garcia happened. Mauritius wanted its independence and gained it but not without threat and some arm-twisting by Wilson and secret negotiations with the US about their intentions to acquire it by all means for a military base at the expense of the inhabitants. So with independence therefore the island became Mauritius sovereignty.
The Chagossians deserve to return to the islands they had called home for almost two-hundred years, and then they deserve to determine if they wish to join Mauritius, Seychelles (also home to part of the Chagossian diaspora), or as an self-governing British Overseas Territory.
03:10 typically British lie . Mauritius got independence in 1968. Before that , Mauritius was under colonial administration. So whom did British bought chagos from in 1965. ITself?
Does that mean Australia is not owned by the Australians or New Zealand isn't owned by New Zealanders? Your logic would suggest they don't. Considering the islands of the Philippines and Indonesia were slowly colonised by the westward expansion of groups from what it modern day Burma and the Indo-China region, they must not be "owned" either. Go back far enough, and every place on earth has been colonised and re-colonised.
@@Jabberstax There is one big difference you missed there, Australian actually live in Australia, New Zealanders actually live in New Zealand. If Australia would still be ruled by by the British I would critizise that too, yes.
I was 13 years old at the time. Sitting in a park just outside Port louis , vapital of Mauritius i noticed a boy of around 7 years old staring at me whilst i was eating a sandwich. I called him over and whilst talking to him discovered that he was a chagossian exiled a few weeks ago from Peros Banhos , one of the chagos islands. Half his family was transported on a cattle ship to Mauritius and dumped in Port Louis and his father and two brothers were transported to Mahe in the Seychelles. The boy was starving and hadn't eaten a proper meal for at least three or four days. I bought him some food and went with him to where he was living with other chagossians. Even at that age i was shocked by what i found out. Their pets were gassed by American soldiers in front of them so that they would not resist being exiled frm their paradise islands. My patents and relatives helped the family with some food and clothes and other Mauritians becam aware of their plight snd helped. A documentary was made on them a while later by John Pilger and the actions of the British and Americans was was squarely described as a crime against humanity. The British did so as they could not afford to pay the Americans for nuclear missiles and the Americans demanded that British leased the islands in lieu of payment for the missiles so that they could have a base in the indian ocean. At the end of the day those Islands were taken illegally by the British from Mauritius and leased to the USA so that the American could continue to have their dream and the British could add Great to Britain regardless of the misery that they caused to defenceless peaceful people.
Notice how noone replied to your comment? They think Chagos is the same as the Falklands. Chagossians actually want to return there and have a say on the future of their native island, unlike the Falklands who wish to remain British.
I'd be careful what I wish for, because my grandchildren might end up underwater. If I were them, I'd consider consolidating UK sovereignty so that I can petition for full British citizenship.
So Mauritius claims sovereignty based on the old colonial lines they claim to be against, while repeating the same tactics on their own islands and wanting to continue what is essentially happening on the island currently, but with them collecting the rent... The only people with an important voice in this discussion, the old residents of the Chagos, have been ignored by both governments and won't be allowed to return in either situation... So this isn't about freedom or anti colonialism, it's about money and strategy 😂😂 just like the Falklands
I agree with everything you said, apart from the Falklands. Those have a more substantial population who definitely want to remain British! The most recent referendum on the matter had 99.8% in favour of staying British.
To be fair, in defence of Mauritius they have a much poorer population than the UK (it needs the money more) and at least have some basis of the claim through geography. The UK has no reason whatsoever to be here, and does not have a longstanding population like the Falklands.
@@tortoisewarrior4855 They lose their claim via closeness to China. You can't just cede power to a rival global hegemon, especially one as morally inferior as China. They have no claim we should respect that isn't overshadowed by their own hypocrisy or their place in the power struggle.
@@tortoisewarrior4855it's not like they stole the island from indigenous people, the islands when uninhabited when Europeans arrived in the 16th century.
@@tortoisewarrior4855is that a defence, do you gain extra rights for being poor? I find it's the opposite. Based on the video no one lived there till France and Britain moved in.
you should have mentioned Cyprus and the base 'owned' by the Uk there. It's a similar situation and probably much more important if claims were to be pushed more seriously by Cyprus
0:58 This is simple. The americans, specifically the CIA have ask the UK to not give them back as it would mean they would have to cease operations there and they can;t be having that. While the base is on diego garcia it will remain under UK rule and leased to the US
The claim of Mauritian sovereignty is not baseless. Most chagossians came here with nothing left to their name. Houses torn down, graves desecrated, animals put down regardless. Mauritius claims sovereignty because of the cultural connection of these islanders to the Mauritius, through Shared language, culture, history and ethnic makeup. If Geography distance was your only argument about why Mauritius should not have Chagos, then Falklands Islands wouldve been Argentinian.
That's why the most valuable data point in this whole discussion is the wishes of the Chagossians. If they wish to unite with Mauritius as vehemently as East Germans wished to reunite with West Germany, so be it. But we need actual evidence that this is what they want. Forcing them into such a union against their will would be a crime.
@@georgesdelatour they do want(prefer) mauritian sovereignty. look at their intervention at United Nation Summit. They clearly stated their intentions siding with Mauritius.
@@georgesdelatour the Chagossian Support group in Seychelles and Mauritius, do regular surveys of families and represent(on an elected basis) the interest of Chagossians. Refer to them, or contact them directly to get the personal details if that’s what you’re looking for.
@@sid.s.s7597 Who said? Most Chagossian do not want to be ruled by Mauritius. They were treated worse than animals once they arrived in Mauritius in the 60's & 70's. The actual Mauritian government made another deal with the British government without including the Chagossian community in the conversation. Just adding insult to injury!
Just ask the people on the Island its not that difficult. Why should they get pushed under Mauritius if they dont want to be, or if they dont want to be with the uk why should they be there.
There isn't any civilians on the islands. They were all deported, as said in the video. The only people that live there now are those stationed on the military base
Ironic as it was the last country to declare the outlawing of slavery - at least so far as the international laws are aware. And that wasn't even two decades ago!
Nah, it's well known among tourists. You can read all about the natural beauty and whatnot in many ads for all-inklusive vacations. It may just not be the attention the Maruritian government craves right now. Or maybe - just a hunch - not what the Chinese government wants to talk about.
Yeah but it's an advisory opinion and not a ruling of law. That would require the UK to consent to granting the ICJ jurisdiction over the matter (it cannot make rulings of international law in accordance with its own charter otherwise).
I think personally if things change in the future and there is no more military presence needed within the area, I think the UK should cede the islands eventually, but I don’t see why they should be given up if they have strategic value really, how we treated the Chagossians was poor really.
As much as i applaud TLDT News for even speaking on the subject, i have to admit that there were some "colonialist propaganda" included in it. And FYI the chinese aint getting a thing from Mauritius, and you should worry more about the amount of stake and assets the Chinese have in LONDON!!!
The majority of the descendants of the Chagos islanders have never been to Chagos. Around 1500 were deported, today, about 7000 identify as Chagossian. Many live in London, near Heathrow airport. They are unlikely to want to return to a life as plantation workers on remote islands.
The narrator states that 'the UK essentially bought the Changos islands off Mauritius for £3 million' and backs that up with source no. 11. I invite you to consult that source and find out where it says any of that. I also invite you to look at what the source says is the right way forward in this territorial dispute.
@@spartanx9293 well the British government gave the Mauritian government the money, and it was the Mauritian government's responsibility to hand out the money, but they didn't hand it out immediately and there may have been other issues too, so you may have a point.
oh and with regards to citizenship, I know that over the years citizenship has been offered and accepted by many Chagossians, but I'm not entirely sure if it was offered to every single Chagossian or not, so you may also be correct in that regard, however I am not entirely sure at the moment.
Can you make a video about the forced deportation of the Chagossians from their homeland, and how the UK Government was so inhumane and brutal with these innocent people.
@@asscheeks3212 what are you talking about!? That happened in the 60s and 70s, most of the deported people are still alive and leaving away from their land.
"Under duress." "Owes money"@@hydra7427, when people change their stories a long time later as an opportunity to grab something valuable that pops up - it's always 100% true isn't it? ROFL
So many countries are like we had 60 people there 400 years ago this is our soverign territory, its not like there havnt been 20,000 wars and territory shifts in Europe alone in that time. ridiculous.
From a diplomatic cable signed by D. A. Greenhill, 1966: In early March 1967, the British Commissioner declared BIOT Ordinance Number Two. ... The plan was to deprive the Chagossians of an income and encourage them to leave the island voluntarily. In a memo from this period, Colonial Office head Denis Greenhill wrote to the British Delegation at the UN: "The object of the exercise is to get some rocks which will remain ours; there will be no indigenous population except seagulls who have not yet got a committee. Unfortunately along with the Birds go some few Tarzans or Men Fridays whose origins are obscure, and who are being hopefully wished on to Mauritius etc". Another internal Colonial Office memo read: "The Colonial Office is at present considering the line to be taken in dealing with the existing inhabitants of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). They wish to avoid using the phrase "permanent inhabitants" in relation to any of the islands in the territory because to recognise that there are any permanent inhabitants will imply that there is a population whose democratic rights will have to be safeguarded and which will therefore be deemed by the UN to come within its purlieu. The solution proposed is to issue them with documents making it clear that they are "belongers" of Mauritius and the Seychelles and only temporary residents of BIOT. This devise, although rather transparent, would at least give us a defensible position to take up at the UN."
According to United States diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks, the UK and US wanted to safeguard the strategic value of the Chagos Islands. "HMG would like to establish a marine park or reserve providing comprehensive environmental protection to the reefs and waters of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), a senior Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) official informed Polcouns on May 12. The official (...) that the BIOT's former inhabitants would find it difficult, if not impossible, to pursue their claim for resettlement on the islands if the entire Chagos Archipelago were a marine reserve"
@@Jabberstax if you read what OP stated then you know establishing a marine reserve was specifically put in place to prevent chagossians from returning
This is silly. Some one found the island and developed it. Transfered it to someone else who then paid someone else for it and we are supposed to think this is wrong?
No. It's a really important strategic base for both the UK and the US. Mauritius shouldn't be claiming something that was once handed to them as a dependency many years ago. Plus, handing Mauritius these islands may threaten the territorial integrity of the Maldives and the Seychelles due to increased Chinese interference in the region.
There is one thing people are overlooking if the UK was to give them up there is nothing then stopping the US going tough shit now the UK left there ours now and tell Mauritius to shut the fuck up and go away. The US is not going to give up the Naval base and the odds are good would just take control of the Islands and tell Mauritius/UN tough luck.
@@davidlister7590 You're right that they generally don't care much. But as of right now, they are pretty overstretched and many of their citizens are questioning the role of the US in the world stage. This could help them realise a few things.
Britain annexed The Pitcairn Islands in 2002, to the surprise and annoyance of the people who live there. I'd say that's their last and most recent colonisation.
It's really sad how the Chagos islanders were treated. But after that there is no good reason why UK and USA would or should hand Chagos archipelago over to Mauritius and China. It's an overseas territory which means it belongs to whoever holds it.
@@ab-ym3bf The people that deserve the islands are the Chagossians that were born and bred there. I think it's fair enough to be hesitant to make another deal about the sovereignty of the islands without including the Chagossians because it could easily put them in the exact same predicament if Mauritius decides to keep the military base and lease it to the US or China. As unsatisfactory as the status quo is, there's no point committing to new agreement unless we can be confident that it will genuinely benefit the Chagossians, and not just the politicians of governments that are thousands of miles away.
@@Dorgpoop yes, it belongs to those borne and bred there. They will decide how to proceed, not the thief, in this case the uk, and it's dealer, the USA. Nothing justifies the uk not giving back what doesn't belong to them, from frescos to islands.
@@ab-ym3bf first of all the native population were compensated. If they weren't compensated enough they should be compensated more. That is a separate discussion. But in terms of who owns it, if UK and US leave it will be annexed by another country. What you think should happen will never happen.
@@chesterdonnelly1212 did the "natives" asked to be removed from their place of birth? No. The English paying of their conscious does not and will never compensate for that , nor is it morally justifiable. No matter what happens, it is not up to the thief to decide. The world has spoken via the UN procedure, and that was clesr: get out and give it back. The sanctimonious english argumentation of "but but" is only put in place to mask the true intention of not giving it back.
EXACTLY. There has never in history been any sort of population native to these islands, they were uninhabitable specs of dirt in a vast ocean, with NO food supply or potable water to support human existence without external supply.
Wow! The comments reek of nauseous colonialist apology. "Mauritius sold them" screams every Little Englander. the question is: was the small island in a position to retain it when faced with the British will to have it? Also, I can't help but feel that if this was a situation where it was France instead of the UK, TLDR will have videos about the matter every other week. I guess that's British objectivity for you. Porca miseria!
To be honest I think Mauritius claims to the islands are extremely weak and are incentivised by expansion, after all "disputably", I believe the British are legally entitled to occupy the islands as they bought it off them after all..
Exactly! Just like they bought most of the content of the British museum from their original owners. If you've paid off the previous owner / occupant for next to nothing then whatever it is, is now definitely yours.
All of the small island nations in the Pacific unite against Australian energy policy but that hasn't stopped the Australian government even once, I doubt the fact that any union of Indian ocean islands (which are comparatively weaker economically) would be able to do anything to slow climate change either.
@@ShinyWasTakenTwice it's better to try than do nothing. Also mate I'm Australian :) but if you prefer a Pasific Union(s) w/o Aus, please tell me I'm all ears.
@@Jabberstax again, should they just sit around and let the sea flood them over or fight against it? Canada, World's Becon of Light, can take in the 4th generation, but the gen shouldn't exist as 3rd is quite alot.
Mauritian here, So there's 3 groups of Chagossians here. There's the ones based on UK who agreed to renounce all claims of resettlement in exchange for compensation and resettlement in the UK with a British passport. Their entire existence in the UK depends on the British accepting that they are British citizens. They spend their whole time campaigning for the UK government to allow their families in Mauritius to emigrate to the UK. If the UK agreed that Chagos is indeed Mauritian, they could potentially be expelled from the UK. They are the ones who claimed that they should be consulted on negotiations between Mauritius and the UK. Then there's the ones who live in Mauritius, many refused to sign the agreement. Some of them signed, got a British Passport but argue that it's not enough. Many of them are illiterate, some of them signed without knowing what happened. The compensation given to them is used as a trust fund. They are mostly glad to have Mauritian lawyers helping them navigate the ICJ. They have changed their minds several times but ultimately want what's in their interest even which is to return to Chagos, as long as Mauritius cooperates, they will cooperate too. They are the main people who are negotiating with the UK. And there's the ones in Seychelles who don't mind the claims of Mauritius at all if it means that Mauritius will allow them to govern themselves as a dependent island... just like the dependencies of Mauritius.
Mauritius's claims on the islands are weak and certainly not stronger than the UK's claims. your report implies that they have a reasonable case. The UN's resolution is another political statement, not a legal one. Mauritius is reneging on a treaty that they are fully party to and they are the bad guys here. The only real question is whether the islands are the homes of the "Chagossians". You seem to skate over this issue. Some commenters on this page erroneously think that they were the descendants of slaves, but they weren't. The history of the islands all say they were contract labourers (who wouldn't have residency rights). In that case they don't have a strong case either.
The question is who is responsible for the sins of the fathers? If it's a person, then typically the law says the sin dies with the father. And the victim can't make the sons pay for their father's sins. But what about a country? I personally think a satisfactory solution is to pay a proportionate restitution to those deported chagaceaians(?) the loss of their land and homes. But asking for international treaties to be redone seems excessive, as that would make a lot of existing treaties invalid as long as someone later claims it's unfair. Germany will want its pre WWI land back, zulus will want their african empire back. Sure, they were unfair at the time, but such was the state of the world at that time.
Time to return Mauritius to the Netherlands then. No wait, actually that's impossible because the Netherlands themselves should be returned to Spain. No wait, actually that's impossible because Spain itself should be returned to Italy. No wait, actually that's impossible because Italy itself should be returned to Greece. No wait, actually that's impossible because Greece should be retured to Iraq. .....We can go on for a few thousand years more, I'm sure. 😆
@@nvelsen1975not how it works. We have a timeline and determination of statehood and sovereignty. Mauritius by right owns of the UN international law owns it.
@@nvelsen1975 Again there isn’t any buzzwords. It’s the international court of justice determining the ruling. You can oppose the ruling and look up their verdict. It’s the same way many countries formally joined different unions or lay claim which have been recognised. The problem is that Mauritius does host a large number of indigenous people to these islands and they wish to go back to those islands. By right Mauritian is nearer to it than the UK and does host people who first lived there.
@@teamjam2863 Why do you tell lies? The ICC never ruled in favour of the Mauritius regime. They ruled the Chagos archipelago was not decolonised. (well duh) Then came a lot of nonsensical blabbering about a non-existant 'right to self-determination', but importantly: OF PEOPLE. Not of heaps of sand, but people. Which made clearing the few inhabitants of the military island a very foresighted move, since there's not been anyone to claim a desire for self-determination for over half a century now. If you disagree and think the ICC ruling says "The Mauritius regime owns the Chagos islands, cuz, uh, somethingsomething", then quote it and state which annex it says that.
About the title: Mostly BIOT is incuded in Asia usually as its within the Chagos-Laccadive Ridge with lakshadweep and the Maldives, making it Britains last "colony" in Asia. Secondly St Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha are all actually African so BIOT wouldn't even be the last. Lastly like most comments say, BOTs are not colonies merely territories.
Its the Chagossians that suffer. Many of them died "of a broken heart" as they have been left stateless and the UK refuses to give them a British passport. Many have succumed to addiction, depression and suicide. Tragic.
my mother who is a chagossian is an alcoholic because of this. After she gave birth to me i spend only 14 days with her till i was adopted by another family because of her addictiveness to Alcohol she couldn't raise a child like that. She was Deported to the Seychelles in 1972 at the age of 14. she still alive to this day at the age of 65, after all these years i finally known my real mother back in 2018 while walking on the streets in town, she notice me & called be by my name she gave me, i told her do you know me....... i have to stop now im getting really emotional & angry, im really angry with so called freedom fighters of democracy namely the Uk & its Husband Uncle Sam. it seems this World we live in is based on Double Standards basically.😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
The UN Général Assembly has overwhelmingly called for the return of the Chagos to Mauritius . Only 6 countries voted against this resolution : Uk, US, Australia under the conservative Buffon , Israel, Hungary and Maldives. And UK and U.S. are these 2 buffons which day and night speak of rules based order and human rights
I'm sure Hamas spokesperson Guterres had a field day to see yet more white people voted against. Maybe the Mauritius regime will actually succeed in their plan to steal British territory and line their deep pockets with British and American money.
There seems to be a lot more territorial disputes/return of cultural property being brought up recently, targeted at the UK. The rest of the world sees the UK is declining again, and it's time to pick at the carcass.
1. It is declining, very clearly 2. This dispute has been active for like 40 years. 3. Other than the british colonies on Cyprus, this is the only dispute? or am I missing something?
I think its a misperception, as independence doesn't necessarily mean or equate to separation. In fact, in many cases its the avenue through which new independent nations and states can join the commonwealth and the larger community
@Me-ui1zy no, the discussion is multifold, some talk of a crisis of capitalism while others are focused more on the rise of the new right, despite repeatedly hearing about a 'culture in decline' we still see real terms growth of both capital and culture. I vuess it depends on what side of the fence you sit on and who butters your bread.
@@Me-ui1zy do the names "Gibraltar" and "Malvinas" not ring bells? Or Northern Ireland and Scotland? Or go have a look at the UN decolonisation list, after all the majority of territories mentioned there are British.
PLEASE CORRECT YOUR MISTAKE No one has been deportated to Mauritius From Agalega. Yes the Mauritius and India are building a military support facility their but the inhabitants have not been deportated!!!!!! You should have contacted the Mauritian Press also to get a good picture not just the British press!
We're they natives though? As I understand it, the people originally came from Africa main, India & Madagascar. Calling them "natives" is like saying white European Americans are native to the US.
It's not even Chagossians land - they got brought in there by French to do work. Then when the owners changed, they got moved out + they got even paid for it. I'd say Chagossians have no more claim to those islands than a nowaday's renter has claim to their landlord's apartment. I find it absurd Chagossians are even being taken seriously.
They were enslaved by the French and forced to work on the island. Their descendants have every right to call the island their home. Making a comparison to a renter is laughable.
@@mrjoe5292Their descendants who presumably have never even set foot on the island? And btw, why would you WANT to return to the place you were enslaved? Like the original commenter said the dudes were compensated for being moved out of the island too, it’s not like this was a massive loss for them.
@@wegdhass5587 These people were born on that island, or they're the children of people born on that island. Imagine how you would feel if you weren't allowed to return to where your family is from. They weren't enslaved there they were enslaved in Africa then taken there. It became their home, in fact the descendants of the enslaved were apparently freemen after slavery was abolished. These are people who were born onto the island and grew up on the island. That's what a home is. I'm trying my best not to be rude but this is really basic stuff. You don't get to tell them how much of a loss it is for them, any more than someone could tell you how much of a loss it would be for you to be forcibly removed from the land you were born and grew up in.
The lease agreement with the US meant that in turn for the base, the UK would receive Trident nuclear submarine launched ballistic missiles. One of the hitorically more unique lease payments.
lol, no they didn’t
If you cannot afford it then don't have it instead of obtaining it by committing crime against humanity.
Get the effing hell out of Mauritius
I heard Polaris missiles
@@jaymareachealee3351 what crime did britain commit to obtain these islands? because you clearly have no knowledge of the situation, nor did you watch the damn video your commenting on
I did two tours of duty at Diego Garcia. Used to sleep on the fishing peer at night in a lawn chair with my fishing pole tethered so I would not lose it. Beautiful island.
Beautiful stolen land may the imperialists fall and the chagossiams return
I spent 13 months at Dodge (Diego Garcia). It was like living in a real M*A*S*H tv episode. A lot of boredom, booze and brawls. The Brits on the island didn’t do much but raise and lower the Union Jack. Many were Royal Marines on their final duty before leaving the service. Some had PTSD issues from the Falklands and Northern Ireland. Always at the end of the shop chain with rejected food items from other bases. The Aussies gave us the greatest gift for Christmas, fresh milk.
0:43 0:44
Did you notice any of the torture carried out prisoners by the Americans or were you too boozed up to notice ?
Not going to comment on if they should but I think they aren’t.
They are just too damn valuable strategically to the UK and US. The islands are only a couple days sailing away from the straight of Malacca which is vital for China’s international trade. If the US wants it kept in UK hands then that’s the issue dealt with and in all honesty I can’t see the international community throwing a riot over this. Just my thoughts
i agree. the british and american military complex won't back down without a fight.
@@missm10
Idk if you intended that to be sarcastic but unironically no, the military complex ought to dig their heels in, especially with China threatening active war with western allies.
@harrtybb no one lives there because we forced the islanders out
@@gavinstuart6704 Well yeah but the people who want the islands now aren't the people you forced out. Not only have they been completely excluded from the negotiations but most of them went to the Seychelles after being kicked out in the first place.
@harrtybb The inhabitants were exiled to Mauritius and the UK.
The more news I hear the less I understand why the UN exists. Countries do not actually care about what the UN says or does…
The United Nations in theory is a litmus test. If you engage in an activity how many people would be against you. The problem is that there is no real threat. There is no real dividing line. So it is a weak litmus test unless all the big players can agree on something. The UN is a massive sideshow.
it's just an extension of colonialism
The UN was created by the US, UK, USSR and China as a way for the great powers to have a forum to communicate and facilitate humanitarian aid. It was *never* meant to solve all the world’s problems, and the great powers could only be bound by the UN if they all agreed. It’s why the great powers have Veto power, and why they have the ability to ignore the UN.
@@andzagatsheni521not really. If the UN didn’t exist most countries would be diplomatically screwed
The UN is just a puppet for the USA to try to give the image that they care about humanity. They don't.
I love how the UK argues how the Falkland islanders should have the right of self determination yet the Chagossians are denied this. Pure Hypocracy!
The who now? Area's uninhabited besides military personel.
That was kinda the point in 1965: To prevent any racist fools from using a handful of villages as a pretext for an invasion against the UK.
Believe or not, there is not a "one solution for all situations" in world politics.
Hypocrisy. But you're right.
Many people know this. Problem is most self righteous westerners who likes to look down on non westerners for "being oppressive" or "authotorian" are like, one of the most guilty of said accusations @@Jabberstax
The problem is, NO ONE is advocating self-determination for the Chagossians. The UN thinks it's "decolonisation" to force them into a political union with Mauritius whether or not they actually want it. If they do want it, so be it. But if they don't, the UN's demand to decolonise is simply a demand for colonisation by different masters.
Regardless of who the US ends up paying rent to for Diego Garcia, I feel sorry for the Chagossians and wish Sunak had at least ensured the people we dispossessed had an avenue to full British citizenship.
Sure, why not? Would be refreshing to have people come here who we're actually morally obligated to take.
Thing is, these were totally uninhabitable islands, the contention that there is some sort of "native" Chagossian peoples is ridiculous.
@@burnsyd17they were descendants of slaves by my understanding and obviously people were born on the island, so like someone commented, I think GB is obligated to take these people in.
@@micallef87I was born in the UK can I claim ownership of it please?
If no for me why not them?
@@micallef87 No we aren't. Europe can have them as you want them.
I think Mauritius’s claim is weak, however I do feel for the islanders themselves
Agree
Mauritius is a lot closer to the islands than the UK is.
@@mildlydispleased3221proximity isn't very relevant when it comes to sovereignty claims. Rule of law and self determination are far more important.
How is the claim weak when it has continuously won cases in international courts and UN resolutions against the UK?
@@_JohnDoeclearly worker for it 😂
I'm really loving these blurbs with additional information in the visuals! Imo thing to do for a presentation of this format - use the visuals not just as elucidation for what's being said, but to drop some extra data too.
Shame half are incorrect
Uhm, Mauritian here.
The reason why Olivier Bancoult (a Mauritian) is trying to claim back the Chagos is because, well, he was born there and was forcibly removed at age four along with his family.
Most Chagossians are Mauritians. Some of them gave up and accepted a British passport in exchange for shutting up, which is their right. Others led a delegation to the United Nations International Court of Justice and fight for the right to decide what to do with their homeland.
As a Mauritian born, this fight is definitely not mine but these guys are our adopted brothers now and well, whatever Bancoult and the rest of the refugees decide is what we're going to do. The UK certainly didn't side with the Chagossians and the US doesnt want any native staying close to their stuff. The Mauritian government is full of venal opportunists though and are much closer to India than China but well, Chagossian-born Mauritians can vote on which Mauritian scumbag will fight their case. They have been denied a vote on UK politics for 55 years now.
Chagossians certainly didn't have a great time in Mauritius, we were all poor and struggling back then but we managed as a whole to improve and somehow become the most successful country of Africa according to many websites. I doubt that. But Chagossians didnt take off as well as the other communities of ex-slaves or indentured labourers. Maybe it's because they were forcibly uprooted from their home and sent to a broke-ass foreign country where they didn't quite speak the language and didn't have land, money or jobs where their skills as fishermen would be of use. The very young natives did much better because they could go to school. Bancoult for example, is an electrician by trade.
In any case, Mauritians certainly don't have the weapons or nukes. The least we can do is to sue the UK while knowing full well that its mostly hopeless if the UK and the US think they're above justice.
Forced to move by who?
@@SaintGerbilUKthe colonisers?
@@justanerd414 which ones?
The way you talk about it it sounds like an 18th century admiral did it.
They already took the case to court and the Uk and us ignored it. As for us thinking we are above the law many countries just ignore the international courts or don’t implement resolutions it’s sadly normal
@@gothicgolem2947 ignored it or rejected it, these are very different?
Reassert its sovereignty? Mauritius never had sovereignty over them in the first place, having never been part of a sovereign Mauritius
And being unoccupied until France and then Britain came along.
There's a large amount of failed states who want to "reassert sovereignty" on UK/former UK territory when they have never actually owned it.
International law says that when given independence ex colonies should retain their colonial borders, similar to how ex Soviet states like Ukraine retained their borders after independence
@@alexgray2482 source?
Also it wasn't part of Mauritius when it was colonised it was empty, unclaimed and miles away.
@@SaintGerbilUK It was a part of the Colony of Mauritius and it should have been a part of the independent Republic of Mauritius
The islands need to be returned to Mauritius and the islanders allowed to return or be compensated
This is so weird. I literally looked this up randomly this morning.
_in 1965, the UK essentially bought the Chagos islands off Mauritius for £3 million via the Lancaster House agreement_
Paragraph 22 of the Record of the Meeting held at Lancaster House in the afternoon of 23 September 1965 states, in subparagraph (iii), that 'compensation totalling up to £3 [million] should be paid to the Mauritius Government over and above direct compensation to landowners and the cost of resettling others affected in the Chagos Islands', and, in subparagraph (vii), 'that if the need for the facilities on the islands disappeared the islands should be returned to Mauritius'.
If the UK committed itself to returning the archipelago, it means that it did not buy it. The 'compensation' is for depriving Mauritius of what both parties agree as being part of Mauritius's territory for an indefinite, but not unlimited, period of time.
_the General Assembly passed a number of resolutions criticising the move, but these were essentially _*_ignored by_*_ both the UK and _*_Mauritius_*
Are you suggesting that a colony, which did not have its own voice at the UNGA, was, against the wishes of the latter, happily having what it considers to be part of its territory taken away from it?
_Mauritius's fishing industry was diminished after the UK declared the Chagos Archipelago a protected area in 2010_
Do you actually not see how that statement does not make sense?
The seas around the archipelago have never been part of Mauritius's EEZ for the notion of EEZs only came into existence in 1982 with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Whatever fishing takes place in those seas, if any, is by, or with the permission of, the UK rather than Mauritius, and, thus, has no bearing whatsoever on Mauritius's fishing industry. In any case, the marine protected area has been unanimously declared illegal by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2015.
_accusing the Mauritian government of consistently ignoring Chagossian interests. Chagossians have been conspicuously excluded from the negotiation process by Mauritius and the report claims that most Chagossians are, at best, ambivalent about Mauritius's claim_
Chagossians were part of the Mauritian delegation at the International Court of Justice in September 2018 and made a poignant oral statement in favour of Mauritius.
Chagossians were also part of the Mauritian government's expedition to the archipelago in February 2022.
These sound neither like exclusion nor like ambivalence.
Please rememnber that Wilson was the prime minister of the UK when the stealing of Diego Garcia happened. Mauritius wanted its independence and gained it but not without threat and some arm-twisting by Wilson and secret negotiations with the US about their intentions to acquire it by all means for a military base at the expense of the inhabitants. So with independence therefore the island became Mauritius sovereignty.
Sir i am one of your folower since tldr journey started and verry happy to see your success
The Chagossians deserve to return to the islands they had called home for almost two-hundred years, and then they deserve to determine if they wish to join Mauritius, Seychelles (also home to part of the Chagossian diaspora), or as an self-governing British Overseas Territory.
Britain: why do the right thing when you can do the wrong thing!?
You clearly didn't watch to the end of the video, where it was explained that Mauritius is trying to do exactly the same thing as the British 😂
Keeping it is the right thing to do unless u want China to take over
03:10 typically British lie . Mauritius got independence in 1968. Before that , Mauritius was under colonial administration.
So whom did British bought chagos from in 1965. ITself?
The British don’t „own“ anything below the equator. They may suppress peoples with force, but stealing land doesn’t make you it’s rightfull owner.
Well, they own the Falklands, Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, Pitcarin, and the BIOT.
Does that mean Australia is not owned by the Australians or New Zealand isn't owned by New Zealanders?
Your logic would suggest they don't.
Considering the islands of the Philippines and Indonesia were slowly colonised by the westward expansion of groups from what it modern day Burma and the Indo-China region, they must not be "owned" either. Go back far enough, and every place on earth has been colonised and re-colonised.
@@Jabberstax There is one big difference you missed there, Australian actually live in Australia, New Zealanders actually live in New Zealand. If Australia would still be ruled by by the British I would critizise that too, yes.
@Ganjor420 well, your comment is incorrect since british people do live below the equator in british overseas territories.
I was 13 years old at the time. Sitting in a park just outside Port louis , vapital of Mauritius i noticed a boy of around 7 years old staring at me whilst i was eating a sandwich. I called him over and whilst talking to him discovered that he was a chagossian exiled a few weeks ago from Peros Banhos , one of the chagos islands. Half his family was transported on a cattle ship to Mauritius and dumped in Port Louis and his father and two brothers were transported to Mahe in the Seychelles. The boy was starving and hadn't eaten a proper meal for at least three or four days. I bought him some food and went with him to where he was living with other chagossians. Even at that age i was shocked by what i found out.
Their pets were gassed by American soldiers in front of them so that they would not resist being exiled frm their paradise islands. My patents and relatives helped the family with some food and clothes and other Mauritians becam aware of their plight snd helped.
A documentary was made on them a while later by John Pilger and the actions of the British and Americans was was squarely described as a crime against humanity.
The British did so as they could not afford to pay the Americans for nuclear missiles and the Americans demanded that British leased the islands in lieu of payment for the missiles so that they could have a base in the indian ocean. At the end of the day those Islands were taken illegally by the British from Mauritius and leased to the USA so that the American could continue to have their dream and the British could add Great to Britain regardless of the misery that they caused to defenceless peaceful people.
Your story sounds made up.
Notice how noone replied to your comment?
They think Chagos is the same as the Falklands.
Chagossians actually want to return there and have a say on the future of their native island, unlike the Falklands who wish to remain British.
@@Tarantula.8eyesnobody cares about what the Falklanders want
Gosh. 9 months later,chagos has been given to Mauritius. I hope chagossians will be allowed to return him
No matter who owns it, the Chagossians should be allowed to return.
I'd be careful what I wish for, because my grandchildren might end up underwater.
If I were them, I'd consider consolidating UK sovereignty so that I can petition for full British citizenship.
@@doujinflipthey should have the choice
Why it's like me selling my house to you and still wanting access 24/7
@@SaintGerbilUK Chagossians didnt sell their land, they were kicked out.
@@xijinpig8982 they were compensated aka paid.
If you want to learn more about this, Phillippe Sands, an international lawyer involved with the case, has a really good book about it
funnily enough I just bought that book today
"involved in the case" instantly creates bias. Probably better to seek out people who are not involved.
@@Duncan23 yea that was why I was a bit apprehensive when buying that book, but nevertheless I'll give it a read.
@@Duncan23 yeah ofc, but it’s rlly good for a jumping off point about the whole situation
So Mauritius claims sovereignty based on the old colonial lines they claim to be against, while repeating the same tactics on their own islands and wanting to continue what is essentially happening on the island currently, but with them collecting the rent... The only people with an important voice in this discussion, the old residents of the Chagos, have been ignored by both governments and won't be allowed to return in either situation... So this isn't about freedom or anti colonialism, it's about money and strategy 😂😂 just like the Falklands
I agree with everything you said, apart from the Falklands. Those have a more substantial population who definitely want to remain British!
The most recent referendum on the matter had 99.8% in favour of staying British.
To be fair, in defence of Mauritius they have a much poorer population than the UK (it needs the money more) and at least have some basis of the claim through geography. The UK has no reason whatsoever to be here, and does not have a longstanding population like the Falklands.
@@tortoisewarrior4855
They lose their claim via closeness to China. You can't just cede power to a rival global hegemon, especially one as morally inferior as China. They have no claim we should respect that isn't overshadowed by their own hypocrisy or their place in the power struggle.
@@tortoisewarrior4855it's not like they stole the island from indigenous people, the islands when uninhabited when Europeans arrived in the 16th century.
@@tortoisewarrior4855is that a defence, do you gain extra rights for being poor?
I find it's the opposite.
Based on the video no one lived there till France and Britain moved in.
you should have mentioned Cyprus and the base 'owned' by the Uk there. It's a similar situation and probably much more important if claims were to be pushed more seriously by Cyprus
Meanwhile, France tris to stay out of it in the hopes people won't notice our own collection of rocks.
0:58 This is simple. The americans, specifically the CIA have ask the UK to not give them back as it would mean they would have to cease operations there and they can;t be having that. While the base is on diego garcia it will remain under UK rule and leased to the US
We paid for it. Next
no. Mauritius didnt have a choice, UK just stole them and gave some money. MONEY MEANS NOTHING
You mean by abuse of authority! too bad for U. N do not recognize it and the western golden age is in decline
Well, it's gone now
Personally, I suspect an Alien Conspiracy.
The autocephalous Intergalactic Guanan Empire has a Embassy there and is helping the US with technology.
If the British give up the islands that would be a huge loss for British foreign power.
Good
agreed.
@@Zangooser sounds like cope
Brits can't even manage their main territory.
@@GeistInTheMachine better than most given our history
The claim of Mauritian sovereignty is not baseless. Most chagossians came here with nothing left to their name. Houses torn down, graves desecrated, animals put down regardless. Mauritius claims sovereignty because of the cultural connection of these islanders to the Mauritius, through Shared language, culture, history and ethnic makeup. If Geography distance was your only argument about why Mauritius should not have Chagos, then Falklands Islands wouldve been Argentinian.
That's why the most valuable data point in this whole discussion is the wishes of the Chagossians. If they wish to unite with Mauritius as vehemently as East Germans wished to reunite with West Germany, so be it. But we need actual evidence that this is what they want. Forcing them into such a union against their will would be a crime.
@@georgesdelatour they do want(prefer) mauritian sovereignty. look at their intervention at United Nation Summit. They clearly stated their intentions siding with Mauritius.
@@sid.s.s7597 When was the Referendum held?
@@georgesdelatour the Chagossian Support group in Seychelles and Mauritius, do regular surveys of families and represent(on an elected basis) the interest of Chagossians. Refer to them, or contact them directly to get the personal details if that’s what you’re looking for.
@@sid.s.s7597
Who said?
Most Chagossian do not want to be ruled by Mauritius. They were treated worse than animals once they arrived in Mauritius in the 60's & 70's. The actual Mauritian government made another deal with the British government without including the Chagossian community in the conversation. Just adding insult to injury!
Just ask the people on the Island its not that difficult.
Why should they get pushed under Mauritius if they dont want to be, or if they dont want to be with the uk why should they be there.
There isn't any civilians on the islands. They were all deported, as said in the video. The only people that live there now are those stationed on the military base
The people on the islands are US Forces
there are only military personnel on the island, all the natives were forcibly driven out and their land taken over by the military base
They were expelled years ago, weren't you listening?
@@noleftturnunstoned okay so why should the rest of the people have to lose their homes
What was done to the Chagossians by the British and USA is a crime against humanity.
Calm down, bud. 😂
I think this is the first time Mauritius has been given any form of attention
Ironic as it was the last country to declare the outlawing of slavery - at least so far as the international laws are aware. And that wasn't even two decades ago!
Nah, it's well known among tourists. You can read all about the natural beauty and whatnot in many ads for all-inklusive vacations. It may just not be the attention the Maruritian government craves right now. Or maybe - just a hunch - not what the Chinese government wants to talk about.
Tromelin
ICJ advisory opinion does not create any obligation under international law
The verdict is ruled in favour of Mauritius
Yeah but it's an advisory opinion and not a ruling of law. That would require the UK to consent to granting the ICJ jurisdiction over the matter (it cannot make rulings of international law in accordance with its own charter otherwise).
I think personally if things change in the future and there is no more military presence needed within the area, I think the UK should cede the islands eventually, but I don’t see why they should be given up if they have strategic value really, how we treated the Chagossians was poor really.
As much as i applaud TLDT News for even speaking on the subject, i have to admit that there were some "colonialist propaganda" included in it. And FYI the chinese aint getting a thing from Mauritius, and you should worry more about the amount of stake and assets the Chinese have in LONDON!!!
Fun story guys. I normally would never hear about this.
chagossians should be given right of return and self determination (maybe via a referendum?)
The majority of the descendants of the Chagos islanders have never been to Chagos. Around 1500 were deported, today, about 7000 identify as Chagossian. Many live in London, near Heathrow airport. They are unlikely to want to return to a life as plantation workers on remote islands.
So there is no dispute, the UK bought the islands from Mauritius. They don’t have any claim
The narrator states that 'the UK essentially bought the Changos islands off Mauritius for £3 million' and backs that up with source no. 11. I invite you to consult that source and find out where it says any of that. I also invite you to look at what the source says is the right way forward in this territorial dispute.
Do you mean by abuse of authority ! too bad for you the U,N recognize it as part of Mauritius
This is wild!!!
if its going to go to anyone give the Chagossians an independant state, dont turn it into a colony of Mauritius
I don't think it's a colony anymore. It's a British Overseas Territory
That’s the definition of a colony
@Kiidsparkyz14 No. British Overseas Territories are what remains of the Empire. Falklands, Gibraltar, etc are British Overseas Territories
@@Kiidsparkyz14 no is not
@@KingAgniKaiyeah just modern british colony with a sexy name
@okman9684 Most of the territories govern themselves. They aren't colonies
I mean the least they could have done is Chuck a whole bunch of money at the people who got displaced or giving them UK or American citizenship
That is in fact basically what happened, they were given compensation and were allowed to become UK citizens.
@@noadookun6269 I was under the impression that only some of them got that
@@spartanx9293 well the British government gave the Mauritian government the money, and it was the Mauritian government's responsibility to hand out the money, but they didn't hand it out immediately and there may have been other issues too, so you may have a point.
oh and with regards to citizenship, I know that over the years citizenship has been offered and accepted by many Chagossians, but I'm not entirely sure if it was offered to every single Chagossian or not, so you may also be correct in that regard, however I am not entirely sure at the moment.
@@noadookun6269 I'm not saying the government has any entitlement to the land they already got their payday I'm more concerned with the people
This videos doesn’t do the situation justice
Can you make a video about the forced deportation of the Chagossians from their homeland, and how the UK Government was so inhumane and brutal with these innocent people.
They are the one who bring them and by deporting them they have amend their mistake. There was no native Chagossian ever before the British.
Are these perpetrators still alive? Or you blaming their sins on their decendents?
@@asscheeks3212 what are you talking about!? That happened in the 60s and 70s, most of the deported people are still alive and leaving away from their land.
@@MrTato1960 who live in those lands now? Soldiers or civilians? Or both?
This is a news channel not a history one.
So some genius claimed it could not have anything to do with Mauritius since it was too far away from it? How far is it from the UK and the US again?
Whatever...but India has every right to secured every securities in the Indian Ocean.
What securities?
Mauritius has no claim, they sold them
Contracts made under duress are not valid.
@@hydra7427They should give back the money then inflation adjusted if the deal doesn’t count.
@@dylanf3108 If anything the UK owes Mauritus money.
"Under duress." "Owes money"@@hydra7427, when people change their stories a long time later as an opportunity to grab something valuable that pops up - it's always 100% true isn't it? ROFL
@@dylanf3108, what is the amount of money that has been paid, to whom, and for what purpose? Be sure to cite your sources.
So many countries are like we had 60 people there 400 years ago this is our soverign territory, its not like there havnt been 20,000 wars and territory shifts in Europe alone in that time. ridiculous.
From a diplomatic cable signed by D. A. Greenhill, 1966:
In early March 1967, the British Commissioner declared BIOT Ordinance Number Two. ... The plan was to deprive the Chagossians of an income and encourage them to leave the island voluntarily. In a memo from this period, Colonial Office head Denis Greenhill wrote to the British Delegation at the UN:
"The object of the exercise is to get some rocks which will remain ours; there will be no indigenous population except seagulls who have not yet got a committee. Unfortunately along with the Birds go some few Tarzans or Men Fridays whose origins are obscure, and who are being hopefully wished on to Mauritius etc".
Another internal Colonial Office memo read:
"The Colonial Office is at present considering the line to be taken in dealing with the existing inhabitants of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). They wish to avoid using the phrase "permanent inhabitants" in relation to any of the islands in the territory because to recognise that there are any permanent inhabitants will imply that there is a population whose democratic rights will have to be safeguarded and which will therefore be deemed by the UN to come within its purlieu. The solution proposed is to issue them with documents making it clear that they are "belongers" of Mauritius and the Seychelles and only temporary residents of BIOT. This devise, although rather transparent, would at least give us a defensible position to take up at the UN."
Mauritius agreed to drop Diego Garcia for their independence …also the UK did had to pay the 14M owned to US
This claim is as stupid as the Falklands claim by Argentina.
France's Tromelin Island?
@@revinhatol What about it?
@@jammiedodger7040 Mauritius lays its claim to Tromelin Island (owned by France) off the coast of Madagascar.
You mean the illegal occupation of the Chagos by the Brits. western hypocrisy and double std at it's best
According to United States diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks, the UK and US wanted to safeguard the strategic value of the Chagos Islands.
"HMG would like to establish a marine park or reserve providing comprehensive environmental protection to the reefs and waters of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), a senior Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) official informed Polcouns on May 12. The official (...) that the BIOT's former inhabitants would find it difficult, if not impossible, to pursue their claim for resettlement on the islands if the entire Chagos Archipelago were a marine reserve"
I thought the whole idea of environmental marine policies was to protect the oceans at all cost? Britain deserves applause for doing so. 👏 🇬🇧
@@Jabberstax if you read what OP stated then you know establishing a marine reserve was specifically put in place to prevent chagossians from returning
This is silly. Some one found the island and developed it. Transfered it to someone else who then paid someone else for it and we are supposed to think this is wrong?
Yhhh someone should do this to Britain and you get deported to Poland. You will like that very much
No. It's a really important strategic base for both the UK and the US. Mauritius shouldn't be claiming something that was once handed to them as a dependency many years ago.
Plus, handing Mauritius these islands may threaten the territorial integrity of the Maldives and the Seychelles due to increased Chinese interference in the region.
Tromelin
There is one thing people are overlooking if the UK was to give them up there is nothing then stopping the US going tough shit now the UK left there ours now and tell Mauritius to shut the fuck up and go away. The US is not going to give up the Naval base and the odds are good would just take control of the Islands and tell Mauritius/UN tough luck.
At least that would cause diplomatic and political problems to the US, which they deserve.
@@elpito9326 The US for the most part dont care about such things as given there power there able to say deal with it and others have to.
@@davidlister7590 You're right that they generally don't care much. But as of right now, they are pretty overstretched and many of their citizens are questioning the role of the US in the world stage. This could help them realise a few things.
Think the US are still preferable to Russia and China- and they need that base to hold them in check.
I don't see a reason for the uk to make any concessions
And then you wonder why everyone in the world loves the British so much.
Britain annexed The Pitcairn Islands in 2002, to the surprise and annoyance of the people who live there. I'd say that's their last and most recent colonisation.
No, we owned the Pitcairns for years before that.
More like 1838 😂
Mauritius wasn't a colony. It was uninhabited before Europeans arrived.
No. It was originally inhabit by montenegro serbs who got killed by britain
Whether inhabited or not is irrelevant to the question of being a colony.
You can colonize inhabited land (see North America) or uninhabited land.
@@meinacco But in the latter case "decolonization" means... what, exactly? Returning the land to an uninhabited state?
@@PhysicsGamer per Definition it simply means "to remove effects/signs of colonization ". So yes, it could mean exactly what you said.
@@PAVLOVICDORDESERBIABefore that it was inhabited by Dardanian Illyrian Albanians who the Serbs assimilated
“Reassert its sovereignty” bollocks, Mauritius never had any sovereignty over Chagos.
It's really sad how the Chagos islanders were treated. But after that there is no good reason why UK and USA would or should hand Chagos archipelago over to Mauritius and China. It's an overseas territory which means it belongs to whoever holds it.
ah yeah, what a shame we brits did to them, but now it is ours we can keep it. And not for a moment you find your own position hypocritical?
@@ab-ym3bf
The people that deserve the islands are the Chagossians that were born and bred there. I think it's fair enough to be hesitant to make another deal about the sovereignty of the islands without including the Chagossians because it could easily put them in the exact same predicament if Mauritius decides to keep the military base and lease it to the US or China. As unsatisfactory as the status quo is, there's no point committing to new agreement unless we can be confident that it will genuinely benefit the Chagossians, and not just the politicians of governments that are thousands of miles away.
@@Dorgpoop yes, it belongs to those borne and bred there. They will decide how to proceed, not the thief, in this case the uk, and it's dealer, the USA.
Nothing justifies the uk not giving back what doesn't belong to them, from frescos to islands.
@@ab-ym3bf first of all the native population were compensated. If they weren't compensated enough they should be compensated more. That is a separate discussion.
But in terms of who owns it, if UK and US leave it will be annexed by another country. What you think should happen will never happen.
@@chesterdonnelly1212 did the "natives" asked to be removed from their place of birth? No.
The English paying of their conscious does not and will never compensate for that , nor is it morally justifiable.
No matter what happens, it is not up to the thief to decide. The world has spoken via the UN procedure, and that was clesr: get out and give it back.
The sanctimonious english argumentation of "but but" is only put in place to mask the true intention of not giving it back.
If the islands were originally uninhabited… how do we owe anyone anything?…
We don't we just say we do and fight to the death over it.
EXACTLY. There has never in history been any sort of population native to these islands, they were uninhabitable specs of dirt in a vast ocean, with NO food supply or potable water to support human existence without external supply.
Wow! The comments reek of nauseous colonialist apology. "Mauritius sold them" screams every Little Englander. the question is: was the small island in a position to retain it when faced with the British will to have it? Also, I can't help but feel that if this was a situation where it was France instead of the UK, TLDR will have videos about the matter every other week. I guess that's British objectivity for you. Porca miseria!
Sold them from an abuse of authority
2000 km from Mauritius.... come on...
Count the km from England, dude...
r u ok?
@@elpito9326 they were there first
@@kruno1861no they werent
How many Km from UK ?? Do your maths, dude.
To be honest I think Mauritius claims to the islands are extremely weak and are incentivised by expansion, after all "disputably", I believe the British are legally entitled to occupy the islands as they bought it off them after all..
Mali? You mean Mauritius?
@@houseplant1016 Sorry about that typo, I fixed the comment, thanks.
Exactly! Just like they bought most of the content of the British museum from their original owners. If you've paid off the previous owner / occupant for next to nothing then whatever it is, is now definitely yours.
If the claim that Mauritius is weak because of distance, then wtf claim do the US and UK have? That they're somehow closer?
@@nar2cc np lol
Who knows. Maybe this island inspired the TV show Lost 😂
Maybe all/most Indian/Ceres Ocean islands should unite into a union, especially to fight climate change as that would sink them with sea risings.
How exactly would a group of islands, who are completely dependent on foreign tourism, fight climate change? 😂
All of the small island nations in the Pacific unite against Australian energy policy but that hasn't stopped the Australian government even once, I doubt the fact that any union of Indian ocean islands (which are comparatively weaker economically) would be able to do anything to slow climate change either.
@@ShinyWasTakenTwice it's better to try than do nothing.
Also mate I'm Australian :) but if you prefer a Pasific Union(s) w/o Aus, please tell me I'm all ears.
@@Jabberstax again, should they just sit around and let the sea flood them over or fight against it?
Canada, World's Becon of Light, can take in the 4th generation, but the gen shouldn't exist as 3rd is quite alot.
I know that they talk about the 2023 war/conflicts being 5 reasons but only 4 effect the 3rd generation, as climate change is the 4th gen.
The British Indian territory is rightfully British it was a uninhabited island in the middle of the Ocean.
It wasn't it had a native people who lived there
@@fnansjy456 There is no natives to the British Indian territory island they were imported.
If it is british indian territory then give it to india 😂😂😂
@@dipakkumar9005 It’s in the Indian sea you pillock that’s why it’s called it.
@@jammiedodger7040 I know it very well
It was just for fun you can see my emoji
I wonder if the British could permit the right of return. From what I have seen the islanders aren’t particularly keen on Mauritius either.
Mauritian here,
So there's 3 groups of Chagossians here.
There's the ones based on UK who agreed to renounce all claims of resettlement in exchange for compensation and resettlement in the UK with a British passport. Their entire existence in the UK depends on the British accepting that they are British citizens. They spend their whole time campaigning for the UK government to allow their families in Mauritius to emigrate to the UK. If the UK agreed that Chagos is indeed Mauritian, they could potentially be expelled from the UK. They are the ones who claimed that they should be consulted on negotiations between Mauritius and the UK.
Then there's the ones who live in Mauritius, many refused to sign the agreement. Some of them signed, got a British Passport but argue that it's not enough. Many of them are illiterate, some of them signed without knowing what happened. The compensation given to them is used as a trust fund. They are mostly glad to have Mauritian lawyers helping them navigate the ICJ. They have changed their minds several times but ultimately want what's in their interest even which is to return to Chagos, as long as Mauritius cooperates, they will cooperate too. They are the main people who are negotiating with the UK.
And there's the ones in Seychelles who don't mind the claims of Mauritius at all if it means that Mauritius will allow them to govern themselves as a dependent island... just like the dependencies of Mauritius.
@@terry_the_terrible thanks for the information.
These islands are hundreds of miles away from each other and do not inherently belong to Mauritius in any way.
Morally, yes.
Realistically, no.
Do most people care, saddly no.
2:50 Chagossians aren't native to the region. They were slaves brought by the French.
So ? Are Jamaicans not native to Jamaica??
Mauritius's claims on the islands are weak and certainly not stronger than the UK's claims. your report implies that they have a reasonable case. The UN's resolution is another political statement, not a legal one. Mauritius is reneging on a treaty that they are fully party to and they are the bad guys here. The only real question is whether the islands are the homes of the "Chagossians". You seem to skate over this issue. Some commenters on this page erroneously think that they were the descendants of slaves, but they weren't. The history of the islands all say they were contract labourers (who wouldn't have residency rights). In that case they don't have a strong case either.
The question is who is responsible for the sins of the fathers? If it's a person, then typically the law says the sin dies with the father. And the victim can't make the sons pay for their father's sins. But what about a country? I personally think a satisfactory solution is to pay a proportionate restitution to those deported chagaceaians(?) the loss of their land and homes. But asking for international treaties to be redone seems excessive, as that would make a lot of existing treaties invalid as long as someone later claims it's unfair. Germany will want its pre WWI land back, zulus will want their african empire back. Sure, they were unfair at the time, but such was the state of the world at that time.
Time to return Mauritius to the Netherlands then.
No wait, actually that's impossible because the Netherlands themselves should be returned to Spain.
No wait, actually that's impossible because Spain itself should be returned to Italy.
No wait, actually that's impossible because Italy itself should be returned to Greece.
No wait, actually that's impossible because Greece should be retured to Iraq.
.....We can go on for a few thousand years more, I'm sure. 😆
@@nvelsen1975not how it works.
We have a timeline and determination of statehood and sovereignty.
Mauritius by right owns of the UN international law owns it.
@@teamjam2863
That's a lot of empty buzzwords, but the UK never gave those islands to Mauritius, so how would the regime ever own it?
@@nvelsen1975 Again there isn’t any buzzwords.
It’s the international court of justice determining the ruling. You can oppose the ruling and look up their verdict.
It’s the same way many countries formally joined different unions or lay claim which have been recognised.
The problem is that Mauritius does host a large number of indigenous people to these islands and they wish to go back to those islands.
By right Mauritian is nearer to it than the UK and does host people who first lived there.
@@teamjam2863
Why do you tell lies? The ICC never ruled in favour of the Mauritius regime.
They ruled the Chagos archipelago was not decolonised. (well duh)
Then came a lot of nonsensical blabbering about a non-existant 'right to self-determination', but importantly: OF PEOPLE.
Not of heaps of sand, but people. Which made clearing the few inhabitants of the military island a very foresighted move, since there's not been anyone to claim a desire for self-determination for over half a century now.
If you disagree and think the ICC ruling says "The Mauritius regime owns the Chagos islands, cuz, uh, somethingsomething", then quote it and state which annex it says that.
Other than the change of Landlord, nothing has changed. Zero. Don't ever think that Britain has all of a sudden sprouted a conscience.
good job
TROMELIN (Mauritius VS France)
Woa it's funny I watched Simon's video on Diego Garcia yesterday.
Same. And he provided FAR better context than this short take.
@@burnsyd17 Sure but the main objective there was to just speak about the current issues, no need for the whole background x)
Do you remember which one of his channels?
@@JootjeJ His new one, Places. @Places302
About the title:
Mostly BIOT is incuded in Asia usually as its within the Chagos-Laccadive Ridge with lakshadweep and the Maldives, making it Britains last "colony" in Asia.
Secondly St Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha are all actually African so BIOT wouldn't even be the last.
Lastly like most comments say, BOTs are not colonies merely territories.
Anyway😂
The military base on Agalega is being installed by India, not Mauritius.
Yeah but under Mauritius's watch.
Its the Chagossians that suffer. Many of them died "of a broken heart" as they have been left stateless and the UK refuses to give them a British passport. Many have succumed to addiction, depression and suicide. Tragic.
my mother who is a chagossian is an alcoholic because of this. After she gave birth to me i spend only 14 days with her till i was adopted by another family because of her addictiveness to Alcohol she couldn't raise a child like that. She was Deported to the Seychelles in 1972 at the age of 14. she still alive to this day at the age of 65, after all these years i finally known my real mother back in 2018 while walking on the streets in town, she notice me & called be by my name she gave me, i told her do you know me....... i have to stop now im getting really emotional & angry, im really angry with so called freedom fighters of democracy namely the Uk & its Husband Uncle Sam. it seems this World we live in is based on Double Standards basically.😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
@@jakeblack1677 I am so so sorry. I’m white, British and ashamed and appalled. I wish there was more I could do to help.
@@jakeblack1677 please 🙏 reply to me if you feel there is something I can do to help
Ah.. so they bought the land?
So what's the noise for?
Mauritius is simply trying to milk it- their claim is moot.
Calling a stolen island used as a military base "Footprint Of Freedom" is Peak Irony
Everywhere’s stolen from someone, mate.
It was uninhabited before 😅
@@Bushflare Hmmm... even mainland France?
@@spaghettiisyummy.3623 Gauls and Romans.
@@spaghettiisyummy.3623Yeah. The celts.
Mauritius with global warming and tidal rise will simply in time simply disappear. They can all immigrate to their mates in IRAN or YEMEN.
Mauritians are mostly a bunch of Africans and Indians and maybe a mix of Christians and Hindus. Don't think they'll survive in Yemen of all places.
mauritius has very large indian population, braveman has ancestry there.
Aka it was started by France and Britain and the population has been replaced by Indians so think they can take it from Britain due to white guilt.
but fully mauritian
Why give away our property? Property that we have owned before Mauritius even existed as an independent nation?
Cameron Winning
The UN Général Assembly has overwhelmingly called for the return of the Chagos to Mauritius . Only 6 countries voted against this resolution : Uk, US, Australia under the conservative Buffon , Israel, Hungary and Maldives.
And UK and U.S. are these 2 buffons which day and night speak of rules based order and human rights
The only surprising ones on the list are Hungary and Maldives, all the others were completely expected.
I'm sure Hamas spokesperson Guterres had a field day to see yet more white people voted against.
Maybe the Mauritius regime will actually succeed in their plan to steal British territory and line their deep pockets with British and American money.
There seems to be a lot more territorial disputes/return of cultural property being brought up recently, targeted at the UK. The rest of the world sees the UK is declining again, and it's time to pick at the carcass.
1. It is declining, very clearly
2. This dispute has been active for like 40 years.
3. Other than the british colonies on Cyprus, this is the only dispute? or am I missing something?
I think its a misperception, as independence doesn't necessarily mean or equate to separation. In fact, in many cases its the avenue through which new independent nations and states can join the commonwealth and the larger community
@Me-ui1zy no, the discussion is multifold, some talk of a crisis of capitalism while others are focused more on the rise of the new right, despite repeatedly hearing about a 'culture in decline' we still see real terms growth of both capital and culture. I vuess it depends on what side of the fence you sit on and who butters your bread.
Don’t you mean pick apart the carcass? 😂
@@Me-ui1zy do the names "Gibraltar" and "Malvinas" not ring bells?
Or Northern Ireland and Scotland?
Or go have a look at the UN decolonisation list, after all the majority of territories mentioned there are British.
They can't have them, they already accepted cash for their purchase, no refunds allowed.
No the Uk should keep it
this is all going to disappear into the ocean
PLEASE CORRECT YOUR MISTAKE
No one has been deportated to Mauritius From Agalega.
Yes the Mauritius and India are building a military support facility their but the inhabitants have not been deportated!!!!!!
You should have contacted the Mauritian Press also to get a good picture not just the British press!
They took our chagos islands by forced wickedly evil. snd take abruptly and savagely natives inhabitants from theirs mother lands
We're they natives though? As I understand it, the people originally came from Africa main, India & Madagascar. Calling them "natives" is like saying white European Americans are native to the US.
Mauritius without military might cannot defend the 70 islands of chagos and would require Indian army to do so .
It's not even Chagossians land - they got brought in there by French to do work. Then when the owners changed, they got moved out + they got even paid for it. I'd say Chagossians have no more claim to those islands than a nowaday's renter has claim to their landlord's apartment. I find it absurd Chagossians are even being taken seriously.
They were enslaved by the French and forced to work on the island. Their descendants have every right to call the island their home.
Making a comparison to a renter is laughable.
@@mrjoe5292 agreed, it's like saying the french have better claim to haiti than the haitians
@@mrjoe5292Their descendants who presumably have never even set foot on the island? And btw, why would you WANT to return to the place you were enslaved? Like the original commenter said the dudes were compensated for being moved out of the island too, it’s not like this was a massive loss for them.
@@wegdhass5587 These people were born on that island, or they're the children of people born on that island. Imagine how you would feel if you weren't allowed to return to where your family is from.
They weren't enslaved there they were enslaved in Africa then taken there. It became their home, in fact the descendants of the enslaved were apparently freemen after slavery was abolished. These are people who were born onto the island and grew up on the island. That's what a home is.
I'm trying my best not to be rude but this is really basic stuff. You don't get to tell them how much of a loss it is for them, any more than someone could tell you how much of a loss it would be for you to be forcibly removed from the land you were born and grew up in.
Yeah and the UK should use the USD also... not.
So... Islands With Shoes pins?