The UK's Weird Territorial Dispute With Mauritius Explained
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 มิ.ย. 2024
- Compare news coverage. Spot media bias. Avoid algorithms. Try Ground News today and get 30% off your subscription by going to ground.news/tldr
In 1965, Britain quietly created its last colony - the British Indian Ocean Territory - a handful of islands in the Indian Ocean which were previously under the administration of Mauritius. In the 80s, Mauritius started trying to reassert its sovereignty over the islands, and while the government seemed to be keen initially, that seem to have changed. In this video, we take a look at the islands, why the UK owns them, and why the government decided to U-turn.
🎞 TikTok: / tldrnews
💡 Got a Topic Suggestion? - forms.gle/mahEFmsW1yGTNEYXA
Support TLDR on Patreon: / tldrnews
Donate by PayPal: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
Our mission is to explain news and politics in an impartial, efficient, and accessible way, balancing import and interest while fostering independent thought.
TLDR is a completely independent & privately owned media company that's not afraid to tackle the issues we think are most important. The channel is run by a small group of young people, with us hoping to pass on our enthusiasm for politics to other young people. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, engaging and sharing. Thanks!
1 - www.hrw.org/report/2023/02/15...
2 - media.defense.gov/2020/Jun/08...
3 - asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/U.S.-...
4 - veteranlife.com/military-hist...
5 - www.icj-cij.org/public/files/...
6 - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_G...
7 - www.hrw.org/report/2023/02/15...
8 - www.icj-cij.org/public/files/...
9 - www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/...
10 - media.defense.gov/2020/Jun/08...
11 - media.defense.gov/2020/Jun/08...
12 - www.icj-cij.org/public/files/...
13 - www.hrw.org/report/2023/02/15...
14 - www.hrw.org/report/2023/02/15...
15 - inkstickmedia.com/the-us-base...
16 - veteranlife.com/military-hist...
17 - www.britannica.com/place/Dieg...
18 - veteranlife.com/military-hist...
19 - www.icj-cij.org/public/files/...
20 - press.un.org/en/2019/ga12146....
21 - www.theguardian.com/world/201...
22 - warontherocks.com/2021/07/ove...
23 - asia.nikkei.com/Editor-s-Pick...
24 - www.hrw.org/report/2023/02/15...
25 - www.gov.uk/government/publica...
26 - policyexchange.org.uk/wp-cont...
00:00 - Introduction
01:21 - Historical Context
04:58 - Why Sunak Considered Giving Them Back
07:46 - Sponsored Content
![Yoshi Rinrada - 'มาทำไม' [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/r41xbfRLkLs/mqdefault.jpg)
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 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
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 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.
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
This is so weird. I literally looked this up randomly this morning.
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.
Sir i am one of your folower since tldr journey started and verry happy to see your success
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 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.
We paid for it. Next
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
Personally, I suspect an Alien Conspiracy.
The autocephalous Intergalactic Guanan Empire has a Embassy there and is helping the US with technology.
good job
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?
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
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
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
Fun story guys. I normally would never hear about this.
This is wild!!!
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.
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.
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
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
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"
I thought the whole idea of environmental marine policies was to protect the oceans at all cost? Britain deserves applause for doing so. 👏 🇬🇧
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.
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
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 😂
_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.
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).
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.
Meanwhile, France tris to stay out of it in the hopes people won't notice our own collection of rocks.
So... Islands With Shoes pins?
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.
chagossians should be given right of return and self determination (maybe via a referendum?)
Who knows. Maybe this island inspired the TV show Lost 😂
This videos doesn’t do the situation justice
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
I hapown to know how to make the beverage Mojo btw😊
Ah, interesting.
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
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.
if its going to go to anyone give the Chagossians an independant state, dont turn it into a colony of Mauritius
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
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.
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.
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?
So the marbles thing was to cover over this thing?
He's not planning to return those either.
Ah.. so they bought the land?
So what's the noise for?
Cameron Winning
TROMELIN (Mauritius VS France)
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
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.
Perfidious Albion Indeed.
please use standard units :c
Reminds me of Hawaii.
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.
What a surprise coming from david Cameron 😂🤫
"Footprint of Freedom"
A rare Boris W.
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.
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.
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 😂
FALKLANDS PART 2 BABYYYYYYY
Oh good, Lord Hoar-Hoar has become involved. Everything with be fine, then. Or maybe not.
this is all going to disappear into the ocean
2000 km from Mauritius.... come on...
Count the km from England, dude...
The UK paid for the islands 3 million dollars, so it’s basically there’s. Plus the US does not want to give up that military base.
Bro it's fake chagos it for mauritius ban pitin likizoutmama
The military base on Agalega is being installed by India, not Mauritius.
Yeah but under Mauritius's watch.
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
These islands are hundreds of miles away from each other and do not inherently belong to Mauritius in any way.
i thought the uk brought the island from Mauritius?
Footprint of Freedom really?
not for me as a child of a chagossian Mother.
Come get it lmao
If anything, The islands should ba returned to their native inhabitants.
there wasn't any
@@kjeksklaus7944, becasue the British deported them to Mauritius and the Seychelles.
the British deported who the french brought, so again, there isn't any. If you consider those natives them by extension you must also consider the Americans and British Native, in which case it is already with the native inhabitants @@agathoklesmartinios8414
@@agathoklesmartinios8414 Those weren't native inhabitants, is the thing. No more than the Brits who were already there.
Which makes it a case of a government displacing a bunch of people in order to build a foreign military base, which isn't great to start with. But they also got kicked out to a whole other country, which is worse.
@@PhysicsGamer They were native and indigenous. After all, they were the oldest known human group that had been living there continuously. Even if it happened relatively recently. And they had adapted their culture to fit the environment they lived in too, which is another trait of indigeneity
Yeah and the UK should use the USD also... not.
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.
No the Uk should keep it
Should they negiotate with U.K or U.S ?
Great documentary on this by John Pilger called Stealing a Nation
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 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.
Mean locals should return but the uk keep it
*Long answer: Definitely fucking not.*
2:50 Chagossians aren't native to the region. They were slaves brought by the French.
So ? Are Jamaicans not native to Jamaica??
Malvinas 2 (Africa edition)
2024 i when a British PM with Indian heritage maintains colonies. The rot is reaching to the very core.
To the British PM, you have responsibilities in Guyana that needs your attention, rather military support. Independence was granted fifty plus yeas to three counties making up Guyana. Now Venezuela, wants the ESSAQUIBO, two-thirds of Guyana which was given to Britain a colonial power in 1899. Do you see where I am coming from? This illegal demand is binding on Britain, Maduro should have consulted your government about it. But he does not have the balls to do this does he. Send two Frigates with some commandos as needed.
Bruh.
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
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.
@@RealUlrichLeland 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.
What was done to the Chagossians by the British and USA is a crime against humanity.
Calm down, bud. 😂
Mauritius is simply trying to milk it- their claim is moot.