Britain's decision to hand sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius caused a massive stir in certain parts of the British political establishment. Many even called it a betrayal. So, was this the right decision? Or should Britain have held on to the islands? Let me know your thoughts.
Never heard of the Chagos Islands before today. One thing is for sure, right-wing politics is the same in every country at the moment, facts don't matter, just stir up hatred and division. In general, I would support decolonialization, but then it begs the question on how far back in history do you go with it? should America give back the land to the native Americans? that would be something. There's never an easy answer.
@@marcellusnichols7384 So, in mentioning that the right in Britain is calling this a betrayal and seeking to use the situation for political gain, even though the process was started by their own administration. has nothing to do with right-wing politics? Sounds like the same tactics right-wing politics take in every country. The video wasn't specifically about that, but he mentioned it and I responded to it.
@@enduser8410 yea, it kind of does. How is what the Prof. said any different than the Republican Party using the Afghanistan withdrawal for political gain, when it was Trump who met with the Taliban at Camp David and set that withdrawal date?
Boris Johnson was on GB News saying that Mauritius is too far from the islands to claim sovereignty…. Now I’m no pilot, but I’m pretty sure Mauritius is closer to them than the UK….
Another key difference between the chagos islands and other overseas territories like the Falklands, Gibraltar, etcetera, is that this is the only situation where the UK explicitly deported the entire native population. Falklanders, Gibraltarians, and so on all overwhelmingly want to remain a part of the UK also, unlike the chagossians who reasonably hold a negative attitude against the UK for displacing them. Needless to say, saying this sets some sort of precedent is silly to say the least.
From everything i have read the Chagossians seemingly wish it to remain British. They dislike Mauritius more than the UK as they were mistreated by Mauritius too.
The UK settled those places with the explicit goal of getting people like you to argue bullshit like that lol in case of Falklands with the explicit goal of using 30.000 settlers to claim more territorial waters with potential oil reserves than the 46 million Argentinians. It's in plain language in British Government documents. All after a well-known history of Argentinian exploitation to a level you'd expect from a crime mafia which my country, to our shame, has not opposed.
@@Dominik-lc4plit was American policy that instigated this and not British policy. Britain was bankrupted after fighting two world wars and was in debt to America. So, when America asked britain to do its dirty work it had no choice and now britain is seen as the bad guy while Americans remain unscathed.
Thanks. You make an excellent point. That’s the sad thing. They really weren’t considered in this whole story. I did have a bit I this, but cut it out. I felt that it sort of made the point that their interests weren’t really considered in the end. One gets the sense that Mauritius just wants the territory. It really doesn’t care that much about the inhabitants.
I'm a bit skeptical by the "diplomatic headache" argument. Was there really that much of a stir caused by these islands? I've heard that some believe this might "help Ukraine by taking this issue off the table" with the African bloc at the UN...but...really? I don't think this dispute would really make any government change their mind about the supposed hypocrisy of Western governments vis a vis international law. Most countries like to talk about international law when it's convenient for them, and otherwise ignore it.
Many African nations will despise us as imperialist western powers no matter what we do. Fight Al Shabaab? Fight AQ? Invest? Give aid-- or not-- to countries with corruption issues? Politely plead with Uganda to not execute gays? Believe it or not, all have been decried as military, financial or cultural imperialism
Except sometimes that one nation or a couple of votes from a bloc they belong to can be important. That Realpolitik is where the idealism of international law meets the road.
I remember reading about the plight of the Chagos Islanders more than twenty years ago. It has always bothered me that, for all the wrongs of history that cannot be put right, here was a problem we could fix (I'm from the UK). I was dismayed when David Miliband deliberately made the situation worse in 2014 (and still wonder why he is held in high esteem). But I am glad that we've finally done the right thing. Naysayers be damned.
@EmmaMaySeven it was made worse by Boris Johnson who was foreign secretary and said in print in a memo published by Wiki leaks "I'm not handing over the Strategic United States base to that bunch of monkeys".
I agree. This was a real problem for Britain. It’s just depressing to see how much uninformed commentary there has been on this issue from certain quarters.
@@Denime Of course! Don't you remember when Spain gave its colonies (Guam, Puerto Rico, Philippines) to the United States? Decolonization = recolonization.
Seems a bit odd that Britain could not detach the Chagos islands from Mauritius but they could attach them in the first place. Seems like replacing one remote colonial overlord with another rather than an actual process of decolonization.
@@joenroute9646 So the French attached it then, for the same reasoning .. not because they naturally went together, but to make it easier to govern. It's classic colonialism.
@@joenroute9646 uninhabited. They were historically used by Maldivians as a base for fishing operations but they weren't permanently occupied until the end of the 18th century ... by the dutch / french / then English who imported slaves to help farm coconuts. If anyone has any claim based on historical usage it would be the people of the Maldives
Why? Serious question. It is a completely different issue. Why does Argentina have a claim just because they are off its coast. Does the US have a claim on the Caribbean islands for that reason? Argentina was a colonial creation too. Why does it have a right to another colonial territory?
@@JamesKerLindsaythe difference is UK is not superpower anymore . small economy compare to USA . Right now UK economy is broke . Uk just become USA followers 😂
@@theMOCmaster The difference between Chagos and Falklands/Gibraltar is the islanders have self-determination-- the Chagos islanders were exiled from their homes to make way for the base.
Very detailed video on this little known controversy that had been in the news for the last few years. What makes me wonder though, is that, without ceding control over Diego Garcia, or allowing resettlement there, is genuine resettlement really possible considering the size of the other islands?
The consistant conservative British rage at the violation against their principled stance of just...owning land somewhere, is astounding to me as a very non British person
@@indrajitgupta3280the hypocrisy of this is also astounding bearing in mind India historically reigned over NINE empires before the British, who only ever had one.
And why can't they just "...own land somewhere"? you absolutely astound me with your lack of understanding that, yes, people are indeed allowed to settle unsettled islands.
The base will stay. India and US have asked as much of the Mauritians. I believe the deal was conditional on that. The whether the legal right to the particular island has been given to Mauritians is unclear
@@ObieOnce How come? I think you can reasonably say that the descendants of the first inhabitants are natives. You could say that Chagos is different because a) it was settled more recently than many other places, and b) the first settlers were brought to there by Europeans rather than coming there on their own. However, I don't see why either of these facts would be crucial for the definition of "native".
@@seneca983 the people did not originate there. Nobody calls European people who settled new lands natives, the same applies to these people. And they didn't even do the discovery part, like Europeans.
Prof,thanks for the good work. Could you do one on the disputed islands in the South China sea, Tibet,the dispute between India and China over their border and finally on Japan and China's dispute over some islands?
Mauritian here The situation is pretty simple Seychelles used to be part of the Mauritian colony before being carved out in 1907 Had the British Empire done so prior to a UN resolution of 1960 forbidding dismembering a colony prior to independence, keeping the Chagos Archipelago would have been legal Mauritius was coerced into accepting this dismembering and the population of the island was forcibly expelled Mauritius had the law and international support on this issue The solution is a winwin deal for Mauritius, the UK, the US and the Chagossians Mauritius is friendly with China but closer to India so those crying about chinese intrusion are clueless
Thank you. You are absolutely right. I didn’t go into details, but the key reason why the ICJ case doesn’t have a direct impact on Cyprus is because the island became independent prior to Resolution 1514. It may be a legal technicality, but in law, legal technicalities matter.
@@JamesKerLindsay Mauritius has a last territorial dispute with France over Tromelin It's an even more interesting case as it's an issue born out of unprecise terminology in the 1814 Treaty of Paris between the British Empire and Napoleonic France No forced islander there, no UN resolution, just a matter of pure law
@@JamesKerLindsay does this mean that ex-colony countries are formed just on the basis of the colonial administrative divisions in place om the date of this resolution? Seems a bit arbitrary. Raising the question if the ex-colony country has a real historical tie to the contested territory or is it also politically opportunistic?!
@@Jersey1971 Nope. Mauritian here too. We have vastly closer ties, economic, cultural, and otherwise with India than with China. President-elect Trump's China concerns are utterly misplaced. Even in the highly unlikely instance of the Chinese asking Mauritius for one of the Chagos islands (because they are well aware of our ties with India, and the fact that 2/3s of Mauritians are of Indian stock), India would never allow it to happen.
We argue that the recent agreement between the UK and Mauritius perpetuates colonial injustices, undermining the sovereignty and self-determination of the Maldivian people. Here are some key points raised in this analysis: Colonial Legacy and Continued Injustices: 1. Separation of Chagos: We argue that the 1834 British survey was a precursor to the eventual separation of the Chagos Archipelago from the Maldives. This separation, we contend, was a colonial act that continues to have negative consequences for the Maldivian people. 2. Mauritius as a Neocolonial State: We view Mauritius as a neocolonial state created by the British. We suggest that its claim to the Chagos Archipelago is based on colonial-era divisions and therefore perpetuates historical injustices. 3. True Decolonization: We argue that true decolonization requires the restoration of the Chagos Archipelago to its pre-colonial status as part of the Maldivian territory. Indigenous Rights and Cultural Appropriation: 1. Indigenous Maldivian Population: We emphasize that the Maldivian people are one of the longest-surviving indigenous populations with a rich cultural heritage. 2. French Colonial Impact: We highlight the French colonial legacy, particularly the forced settlement of enslaved laborers, as an act of cultural appropriation. 3. Prioritizing Indigenous Rights: We argue that the rights of the indigenous Maldivian people should be prioritized over the claims of colonial settlers. This analysis offers a critical perspective on the historical and contemporary issues surrounding the Maldives and the Chagos Archipelago. It raises important questions about the nature of decolonization, sovereignty, and indigenous rights. Different stakeholders, including the UK, Mauritius, and the colonial settlers-community, having their own claims and interests, can engage in constructive dialogue and seeking peaceful solutions. To gain a deeper understanding of this issue, it is crucial to consider various viewpoints and historical evidence. Engaging in constructive dialogue and seeking peaceful solutions is essential to address the legacy of colonialism and work towards a just and equitable future for all involved.
Diego Garcia gonna remain for the British or Mauritius, is going to be an extremely long long diplomatic fight.But let's not forget ,about the serious and shameful breach of human rights done by the British against the thousands islanders.First their dogs were poisoned ,not a single one of them was left alive. Then ,the islanders were forcefully removed from their native island and put in boats and sent to Mauritius ,Seychelles and Madagascar.
There are no "chagosian" people. First people to settle we're french who later brought in slaves. There are No native people,only Former slaves that have No Claim to that Land.
@@sd-wc9ep they have claim to land that will be the only reparations available you cannot move people like that its crime genocide and restitution needs to be paid even the slave owners where paid after the people where freed what more those who where slaves justice is them getting the islands and yes when the islands where there the people where living there
Do you expect ten thousand Chagossians to rule a group of islets ? In any case, the archipelago is Mauritian territory and as such belongs to all Mauritians
@@varoonnone7159 so you don't think a people forced to relocate don't deserve their home back. That's a really cruel line of thinking. Even if territorially it goes to the Mauritians, the Chagosians should still be allowed to return. Even if independence is not on the table, AT LEAST some autonomy is fine.
This to me seem to be a tempest in a tea pot... Ultimately this issue is related to the EEZ around the Chagos Islands, with a Mauritius simply seeking future economic windfalls, not about indigenous people striving for self determination. From my understanding the are not any indigenous people of the Chagos Islands because the French imported the people to these islands a an agricultural larbor force. Is this not correct? Thus if the islands were uninhabited at the point of a colonial taking control, they have the strongest position to determine the political construct of these islands. A claim by Mauritius to far removed islands is inherently weak because the Chagos Islands was originally an administrative construct established by the British Colonial Office to manage theses islands. It seems to me skilled lawyers could successfully agrue a success for either side on this issue, because no one has an inherently strong claim to determine the outcome. This will be an intresting situation to follow given the resolution will have long term impacts. Great topic, thanks for the podcast!
All colonies are administrative constructs, the size and distance of the area never really matter. The whole of Mauritius is made up of imported labor from Africa and India.
As for many thinking the era of decolonization being behind us: Never forget that Russia still has to begin its decolonization. Be it Siberia, or many of the other nations, ethnicities and cultures it quietly gobbled up.
I am fairly confident that most of the archipelago is just a few metres above sea level. When the Totten and the West Antarctic ice shelf melts .........!
I have to thank you for this precise & honest report on the Chagos Archipelago issue as opposed to other reports which are purposely overriding the legal aspect.
It’s actually a rather good deal from sounds of it. UK retains full control over Diego Garcia (to the point of exercising Mauritius sovereignty over the islands). Besides, going by the terrible deal the Conservatives negotiated over Brexit, I’m sure that this Labour agreement was much better than we could have expected otherwise.
@JamesKerLindsay The deal seems incredibly one-sided. In this era where military bases are being built on fake islands in international waters in the South China Sea, Britain is giving away its strategic islands for free.
I understand that the UK would rather have facilitated ‘Home Rule’ for the whole island, but the passionately entrenched community in the North (who were indeed mainly Protestant ‘immigrants’ from Scotland and England) and, of course, the results of the plebiscite, gave them little choice but to hold on to those six Northern counties. To this day, the UK wants to see Ireland politically reunited, but it is forced to go very slowly in the hope that old wounds progressively heal and that there is continued cultural convergence over the next couple of generations.
The 3 key issues for when the Treaty is published will be 1) the renewal mechanism after 99 years, 2) any early termination clauses and 3) any prohibition on other military bases on the Changos.
I'm an American who is a staunch Tory supporter. Thanks to your video, I shifted my views on this case. I still think that the lease to Diego Garcia was incorrect, perhaps Britain could have maintained full control of it instead of making it a 99 year lease. You have now gotten me to support the return. Thank you!
Thank you so much. Yes, there was a lot more to this case than the media presented or politicians admitted. I thought it would help to explain the full story.
Great video James thanks for the amazing work. In fact Chagos opinon was a small part of my phd thesis. Even though I acknowledge there is a potential for Republic of Cyprus to push for this, I assume the regional dynamics and the Cyprus Problem itself wont make to be considered. However, I wonder another dimension of the ICJ opinion on Chagos, whether return of Chagos islanders can make a precedence over "right to return" in Cyprus settlement efforts ? Considering previous references on 'absolute majority' of communities in their 'constituent state' which we would argue it limits Greek Cypriot refugees 'right to return.' Similarly but lesser extent to Turkish Cypriots as well. I would love to hear your thoughts over Cyprus once we have a chance to have a coffee :) all the best! mertkan
Hi James, you omitted the fact that when the UK created the BIOT it also took islands that were part of the Seychelles but that it split these islands off and returned them to the Seychelles
Professor I have a question. You said in the video that Mauritius would begin the resettlement of any Chagossians who were away from there home. My question to you is what mechanism by the international community is being used to ensure that it is the Chagossians who are being resettled and not, let’s say, other Mauritians from Mauritius? I would also like to know how are resettlement issues monitored in the international community, if any recent examples of such. Thanks for the video!
@@Omer1996E.C the promise that says “Mauritius will now be free to implement a resettlement program on the islands of the Chagos archipelago, other then Diego Garcia” resettlement here being the Chagossians
@@garrettallen7427 lol, you can't understand English 🤣 This is not a promise to resettle, but a promise to act freely as a sovereign state. They'll now have the freedom to resettle them, and the freedom to not resettle. Stop trying to justify illegal colonialism
@@ektekp I don't mean a conquest is morally less objectionable just because it's not a *colonial* conquest but another type of conquest. This is bit of a technicality.
@@ektekp Well, I didn't give a definitive ruling on that. It's a bit of a semantic issue and IMHO not that important. Russian territory certainly includes a lot of past conquests. Do those count as colonies? That depends on how you define "colony". One possible definition is based on how they're administered. E.g. the UK had a bunch of colonies that were *technically* not a part of the UK but still, in practice, under its rule. This definition is why e.g. some have insisted that French Algeria wasn't a colony but an integral part of France. Of course, not all accept that kind of definition. Another possible definition would be that conquests by European powers (and Japan) in the 1500s and later are colonial conquests but e.g. earlier conquests aren't. Thus you could say that e.g. the Ottoman empire didn't have colonies but the British empire did. This definition could include the Russian conquests in the 1600s and later. Yet another definition could be that conquests that overseas and sufficiently distant count but conquests of a land neighbors don't. Were e.g. Alsace & Lorraine German (or French) colonies? Usually they're not called that. This definition would seemingly exclude the Russian conquests, though maybe you could count the ones that are really far away from the lands Muscovy previously held.
I’m just a little bit vague on the connection of ‘administration of Diego Garcia being in Mauritius’. I didn’t see a clear path of ownership going to Mauritius of the islands, with Mauritius being 800 miles away.
And that’s the really interesting point. I was hoping someone would raise this. These colonial creations were often arbitrary decisions taken by colonial powers. But once taken, the lines on maps became sacrosanct. This in fact explains why Africa has been remarkably free of territorial wars. The colonial lines showed little respect for pre-existing realities. But once they were established they were largely respected. There is no obvious reason why the Chagos Islands should belong to Mauritius other than the fact that Britain decided that they formed a colony as part of Mauritius and having made that decision it had to abide by it.
@@JamesKerLindsay : I kind of thought so. My impression is that that’s the case in many other locations as well. I.e. India, Pakistan and general area, among others.
@@JamesKerLindsay Well yes because territorial integrity applies to colonial creations as much as it applies to UN member states, pre-colonial states, and countries in any other form. Disputes will arise. Biden may be unwell, but he was correct to applaud Mauritius and UK for working it out.
Thanks, fortunately it's OK that you don't see the connection because the UN general assembly, the ICJ and even the government of the UK sees it and that's what matters.
You're doing everything possible to say that the British were in there 3k years ago. Get lost. This land belongs to Mauritius whether you like it or not
@@stunimbus1543 anti-colonial to be precise. No French islands, no british islands, no US hegemony, no Chinese debt-trap, No Russian Wagner, No EU intervention.
The only thing that matters is what the people there right now want. It's abhorred to consider anything else. If they want to leave and join Mauritius it should be allowed. If they want to be independent, they should also be allowed. If they want to stay with the UK - It should be so. Land is just land, but a nation is a group of people. Nobody has a historical claim to anything, if you believe that then you must believe Russia when it claims parts of Ukraine are historically theirs or Israel when it takes land from Palestinians or China when it takes land from nearby nations. How far back do you need to go to feel good about yourself? People have homes, families and lives there right now which are going to be ruined and they did absolutely nothing to deserve it.
Who cares that much what the 'international community' thinks. You can't please everyone, all of the time, and nor should you try to. And most countries that lobbied for this, are just out for their own strategic interests, so the UK should follow their own interests.
Once again Great Britain demonstrated pragmatism in its foreign policy. While the whole archipelago was retained by Britain from the colonial time, it was creating 2 main problems: breach of international law (resolution 1514) and breach of moral duty owed to the chagossian. That said, Britain (rightly mentioned by our honourable professor) was found in an award stance when calling other countries to order and respect the international law. In other words it didn’t walk its talk. It could seem to a number of ignorant people that Britain has betrayed its interests, but in my view - it appears to be exactly the opposite. Firstly: The Anglo-American troops will still have possession over Diego Garcia island where the base is - so really, nothing changes from a strategic point of view. Secondly, by allowing Mauritians to return the sovereignty they will kill 2 birds with one stone: first one is Britain will no longer need to support financially those territories hence it’s a win and secondly, they will become one of the major employer for those Chagossians who are so fiercely claiming those territories, however, Britain would only solidify its stance, since if the base was closed, those territories would face economic problems. And last but not least: on the international scene, Britain will deprive African leaders of their “trump card” against them in terms of “respecting of international law”. Politics is a chess game. One should be able to sacrifice tactically in order to win strategically. All the way down the history line, Britain always knew what it was doing and if one take a hindsight on the chain of events and occurrences, Britain always came out as a winner, albeit at first it seemed as an insane move.
Thanks so much. Sadly, amongst all the sensationalistic reporting on this, very few took the time to explain the real issues and why it had to be done.
Isn't Mauritius real buddy-buddy with mainland China? I've heard they are, but I can't be sure of the reliability of the source. But if they are buddy-buddy with mainland China, then... yeah... you can't give up territory to them...
@@eliassolomou980 We live in the world the way it is, not in the world the way it should have been. And in the world the way it is, you can't give up territory to mainland China or its allies.
@@benjauron5873 no, the world is the way it is because of the men and the policies you defend, the excuses and hall passes you condone and above all because you have an inability to differentiate between right and wrong.
@@neofils african union is silly these people mistreat black people ijn the island they where there before the indians yet they dont have any political power african union could have used that as a negotiating point current these issues of black poverty then we will get you the islands very silly
For centuries, the Maldivians have used the Chagos as a base for fishing expeditions. People would camp on the islands, catch fish, and cook, smoke, and dry them. Additionally, the exiled Maldive King Hassan IX (also known as Dom Manoel), while in Cochin, describes himself in his letters patent of 1561 as King of the Maldive islands, including seven of the islands of Pullobay, referring to Fōlhavahi or the Chagos, and this letter survives in a Portuguese archive in Lisbon.
They never settled the islands. It'd be like saying the Netherlands owns the Dogger Bank because they fished there. No, there was never a settlement, therefore it's not theirs.
If someone could explain a single reason why retaining control of these islands will benefit me or 99% of other British people, I am all ears. Otherwise, it seems sensible and fair to walk away.
If I got that right, the UK had to give up Chagos as it was a retained part of another country following declonisation? If that's so, how does this differ to the situation in Ireland where Britain retained the north?
Given that empire and colonialism belong to the history books yes it's very welcome that the UK relinquish control of the Chagos islands . I don't see this as any type of betrayal whatsoever , however I do find it strange that they've been handed over to Mauritius , as far as I know Mauritius has never ruled over the Chagos islands . A better solution would've been to have spoken with the Chagoan people and to come up with a more acceptable solution . No wonder the Chagoans are up in arms over this deal and feel left out of the own country yet again . I can't help think that the massive American air/naval base on Diego Garcia has had an influence on this decision .
I think what may be most worrisome for the UK-US partnership in BIOT is the Indian and Chinese peer competition in the greater Indian Ocean region and either's influence over Mauritius most specifically.. After the Indians reportedly built what is at the very least a dual use logistical hub in a remote corner of the Mauritian archipelago, China will have its eye on increasing its blue water naval presence in the region.
It's not a dual use facility. Agalega is a military base under construction. India is the primary security guarantor of Mauritius, Seychelles and Maldives. It will obviously monitor what goes on in Diego Garcia.
I think the perspectiv is important. As a person who is mauritian or who does not want the british to have a presence there, it makes sense to say Britain should return the islands. If I would be a british person, I would not want my government to give up territory. And as currently, they already have more british and americans on these island(military personal), even if the "natives" were wrongfully expelled, I would be against them. I really can understand both sides of the conflict. And while I personal have a relativ neutral and mybe even a little bit positiv opinion on this decision, I totaly think that the british government (right and left) have done something against the interests of the british people and their country.
@@JamesKerLindsay Yes and my comment still stands. Labour have handed over territory for zero gain which has weakened our standing on the international stage.
This does affect the cases of Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands, without mentioning that these cases have already been affected by situations like Hong Kong, Macau, the Panama Canal Zone, among others, where an existing state has sovereignty and so exclusive self-determination is not applicable, since that would mean violating the principle of territorial integrity. You are distorting what you read in paragraph 6 of UNGA resolution 1514 (XV), the paragraph does not say “colonial country”, it just says “country”, which includes both non-self-governing territories and sovereign states, and the discussions that have taken place since then all confirm this understanding, for example, during the fourth committee of the Special Committee on Decolonization it was proposed a new language for the paragraph: “and where there is no dispute over sovereignty”. The new language was rejected, but the various justifications are what matters. First, the new language was inapplicable to the eleven territories that were being discussed: “American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, Turks and Caicos Islands, and the United States Virgin Islands”. They said that there was no alternative for these territories but self-determination, which already marks a difference between them and Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands, which lawfully belong to Spain and Argentina respectively. Second, “it introduced conditions that could have unexplored ramifications”, referring to disputes like that of Western Sahara, where Morocco claims and occupies a territory without being the sovereign, just as the International Court of Justice already determined, so that population does enjoy an exclusive right to self-determination. Third, some members said that the new language “was unnecessary”, since the paragraph already limits the right of self-determination in cases where there is a violation of the principle of territorial integrity, it clearly says any “country”, not “colonial country”. UNGA resolution 2625 (XXV) also mentions and explains self-determination and it ends reserving that same thing, this is, that self-determination cannot be used to harm the territorial integrity of a state. Accordingly, resolutions that deal with the cases of Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands do not apply exclusive self-determination to these populations, not only that, but also mention that the plebiscites carried out by the United Kingdom in these territories are contraventions of the relevant resolutions and also that these situations are violations of territorial integrity. In one resolution specifically, the British government wanted to include self-determination for the Falkland Islands, but it was rejected outright by the General Assembly, continuing with the same logic: Argentine territorial integrity and the well-being and self-governance of Falkland Islanders, but no exclusive self-determination. How does the case of Chagos affect Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands? Put simply, if the Chagossians, the real (brutally evicted) inhabitants of Chagos, are finally allowed to return to their home and they are not granted exclusive self-determination by the United Kingdom because Chagos is indisputably a Mauritian territory, then the inhabitants of Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands are not granted that privilege either. As Rosalyn Higgins, British judge and former president of the ICJ, wrote, if Hong Kong, Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands are indeed Chinese, Spanish and Argentine territories, then the population does not enjoy an exclusive right to self-determination, their self-determination is one and the same with that of the rest of the population of those countries, they are at best entitled to their well-being and self-governance, but the territory needs to be reintegrated to the legitimate sovereign. If international law were to choose another path, then it would legitimize invading territories and then make the population decide the fate of the territory, just like in various cases all over the world (Tibet, the West Bank, Crimea, among others). International law should be consistent and it is, no matter how much some people make an effort to distort what it says. Edit: Gibraltar is part of Spain, the Falkland Islands and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands are part of Argentina, Chagos is part of Mauritius, Akrotiri and Dhekelia are part of Cyprus (along with Northern Cyprus), and so are Hong Kong, and Macau part of China, the Panama Canal Zone part of Panama and so on and on... it seems that the British government only cares about self-determination when the population looks European, yes for Falkland Islanders, no for Chagossians... I will not subscribe to such discriminatory policy, the application of self-determination is based on sovereignty, not on colour.
The application of self determination is given to the population that actually lives in the place. Since everybody in the Falkland uniformly wishes to remain British it would a complete violation of their right to self determination to take that away from them and hand their homeland over to the sovereignty of another country which they have no desire to be a part of, te same is true of Gibraltar.
@@sirsurnamethefirstofhisnam7986 No, sorry, that is not how it works. As I have demonstrated juridically and ethically, the right of peoples to self-determination does apply to any human population, but it is not meant to apply to any human population exclusively. In other words, Falkland Islanders, Gibraltarians, and Chagossians do have the right to self-determination, but in an inclusive way, this is, along with the Argentines, Spanish, and Mauritians respectively, their right to self-determination and one and the same. As all international organizations and documents, including the International Court of Justice, explain, the principle works hand by hand with that of territorial integrity, in other words, it applies to the permanent population within the borders of a legal political unit. The political units in these cases specifically are, of course, Argentina (including the Falkland Islands, since they are legally an usurped part of that state), Spain (including Gibraltar), and Mauritius (including Chagos). The logic behind this is clear and I have already explained it in the original comment: the territory of a state belongs to the entire permanent population of that state and not only to one part of it, so they all have to consent the dismemberment of territory, in other words, if Falkland Islanders, Gibraltarians, or Chagossians want to become their own legal political unit, then Argentines, Spanish, and Mauritians should also participate in such plebiscites, as actual democracy demands. I noticed as well that you have not actually defended your claim with sources or logic and, most importantly, you ignored the legal and moral arguments behind this, for example, the fact that allowing exclusive self-determination automatically to a population that is the result of an usurpation would establish extremely dangerous precedents for international law, because if you are in favor of doing so in these cases, then you are also in favor of doing so in Crimea, the West Bank, Tibet, the Sahrawi Republic, among other cases. That is not intelligent nor just at all. Besides, as all experts describe, there is an international obligation to respect the well-being and self-governance of distinct cultures within one state, so even though there is an international obligation to reintegrate the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, and Chagos to their legitimate states, they need to be reintegrated guaranteeing the well-being and self-governance of the corresponding populations.
@@sirsurnamethefirstofhisnam7986 By the way, the British government itself recognizes that paragraph 6 of United Nations General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) puts a territorial limit to the right of peoples to self-determination. During the Chagos case of 2019 it very clearly stated that: _[paragraph 6] was aimed at securing the political objective of precluding demands for decolonization leading to the dismemberment of the territory of a sovereign State_ In other words, the United Kingdom understands very well the correct mechanism of the principle and recognizes it explicitly. It knows that the principle works together with territorial integrity and other principles, and that it cannot be used to dismember a state and much less to legitimize an invasion. The British government also claims that it does not have doubts about its alleged sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and thus, it claims that self-determination is applicable, but that is just a political statement to perpetuate an imperialist abuse: the entire academic community and almost the entire international community (all of Latin America, all of Africa, half of Asia-the only half that cares about the issue-, and almost all the European states that are not neutral) conclude and support the Argentine sovereignty over all these islands. The only states that support the United Kingdom are, of course, the Commonwealth realms (not all), France and Turkey, the last two involved in similar usurpations that benefit from a distorted understanding of the principle of self-determination, the one in Mayotte, which is part of the Comoros, and the other in Northern Cyprus, which is part of Cyprus. So, there you have it, if you actually want to defend an exclusive right to self-determination for Falkland Islanders or Gibraltarians (or even for Hong Kongese), then you need to defend the supposed sovereignty of the United Kingdom over these territories first, as British Judge Rosalyn Higgins explains, even though no academic source concludes that those territories are British, but quite the contrary, they conclude that they are Argentina, Spanish, and Chinese respectively. Again, always guaranteeing that the well-being and self-governance of these populations is respected.
Thank you correctly articulating that Diego Garcia and the surrounding islands were uninhabited upon (Portuguese) discovery. Many other videos get this important point wrong.
Aren't most matters of international law dependent on signing up to an international treaty? It seems like decolonization was one area that is directly governed by general assembly resolutions. Is this true?
How are we to chime on about Putin's imperial ambitions and not give this land away? Especially with the ICC ruling. We keep the base, what is the issue. On Akrotiri etc, if Cyprus pipes up we should be making it worthwhile for them that we're there. That base has been absolutely integral for the past 50 years.
Also worth noting that following this development with the Chagos, Argentina have reaffirmed their commitment to claiming the Falkland’s stating they will take “concrete action”. No matter where you stand on this issue this is the inevitable place we end up. Give away one piece of territory someone else will come knocking wanting a slice. Cede an inch and they will take a mile.
First of all, I would like to say that I definitely agree that the removal of the Chagossians was wrong. Having said that, the position of Mauritius is simply hypocritical. So, they gained independence, received a huge amount of money, and then decided it wasn’t enough and claimed victim status. “Oh, we were poor victims of colonization who obviously couldn’t decide for ourselves, so you have to give us islands that are 1000 km away just to appease us.” This is just shameful.
@@lucius1976 France organised a referendum on each island which is contrary to a UN resolution that said that only the overall results should count As the overall results were in favour of independence, the whole colony should have become independent France's sovereignty on Mayotte is thus not legally recognised by the international community Ironically, France should have got rid of Mayotte which is peopled by poor Muslims, the island looks like a landfill
This is such a great explanation of the situation and how fantastic it is to see the Chagos islands being returned to its natives !! Kudos Dr James Ker-Lindsay for presenting such a sensitive topic in such an agreeable manner 👏👍👍
What's the relationship between Chagos Islands and Mauritius? I believe Al Jazeera has a video in which a Chagossian interviewee who had been deported to Mauritius said she didn't speak the local Mauritius languages.
Seems quite arbitrary regarding the date to when territorial integirty is rolled back. How is any territory or state defined other than by what i controls through power soft and hard? Why is having kept a small archipelago - which it is not clear that it belonged to Mauritius before European arrival - of such great importance, when Mauritius' Westerly neighbour Reunion is to this day entirely owned and controlled from Paris? 99% decolonisation is an outrage, 0% decolonisation is fine?
I'm right wing myself but of the Libertarian persuasion and I'm also American so I don't understand why people are upset with this decision. I mean, if the important military base of Diego Garcia is still there why should they be upset about returning the other islands to the Chagos people?
The island was uninhabited when Europeans came. There were stories of fishermen stumbling onto the island previous to the Europeans, but it was so remote and had such few resources that nobody was present when Europeans first came. The “islanders” in Chagos were actually brought in from other islands far away as slaves by the French. When Britain defeated France in the war they took Chagos for themselves but the French slaves remained. But those people weren’t “native” to the island. Britain has as much right to claim the island as anybody.
I understand addressing the removal of Chagos peoples and their need for self determination. The six hundred mile distance across the Indian Ocean from Mauritius, was there something other than British colonial administration that would connect two?
Why is the emphasis on Starmer? It was James Cleverly under Rishi Sunak that got most of this done, and only because the British kept losing court battles over it. In fact, the deal has worked out all-round. Mauritius gets Chagos, USA gets to use the base - They seem happy with it. Starmer just signed it off - that's it. If he hadn't Mauritius would've dragged up through the courts again. Some comments are crazy and irrational.
@@roddychristodoulou9111 UK could retain the base but with a lease agreement. I think that would be something mutually beneficial for both countries. The problem with the current status is that Cyprus has no jurisdiction over what happens in the basis and can't do anything to change the situation
I think the UK should start considering handing back those territories once the colonial power on the north of the island has withdrawn and the DMZ no longer needs to exist.
@@markdowding5737 For one, the occupation of half of the island is obviously a much more important matter to the Republic of Cyprus. If Turkey never leaves, the UK can continue with its peacekeeping mandate there with the happy side-effect of having an unsinkable aircraft carrier near the Middle East.
Great video professor. With this move I am sure Britain will not be treated as a hypocritical imperialist power any more. Oops, apologies, we should first abandon our bases in Cyprus. Only once actors in the Middle East any Asiacan attack us with impunity will we truly be accepted. IRGC must be deterred at what a strong showing of soft power this represents Anyway, back to the biannual UN meeting on the status on the Falklands.
Very disappointed that this is the framing you’ve chosen for this video. The people of Chagos were forcibly expelled from their homes in a textbook imperialist move. Why the hell should we be more concerned with the UKs ability to project their military power abroad than with the lives of these people who’ve been wronged so severely?
That is fair point and their story could have been included but it's a geopolitics angle on a geopolitics channel.... hence that's the narrative subscribers are wanting to know about.
"Very disappointed that this is the framing you’ve chosen for this video [...] Why the hell should we be more concerned with..." What are you talking about? He didn't say you should be more concerned with that. He simply described the situation. He did also mention the expulsions.
Ridiculous. Self inflicted capitulation, totally unnecessary. Britain is a shadow of its former self. These islands were originally unpopulated and never part of Mauritius, just on paper administered from there during colonial times. Why give them up, what if Mauritius makes a deal and lets China establish a similar base close to Diego Garcia. India and the US can't let that happen. Irresponsible decision to open up such options.
As long as the Diego Garcia airbase stays indefinitely the main issue I for see is espionage. If the airbase were to be used in a conflict I can imagine that civilians on the island could provide info to enemies of the US & UK like the Serbians did near Aviano Airbase in Italy during Operation Allied Force.
@@VTh-f5x I don’t view India as a threat. And if China were the nation we were fighting in said conflict their fishing vessels would likely not be there or sunk. Seeing as so many commercial vessels in china are part of their maritime militia.
@@omarrp14 nothing can be done about Chinese fishing vessels because any adverse action will give china license to do the same with Western commercial shipping.
@@VTh-f5x these Chinese ships, if registered in their naval militia, will working like a paramilitary force. Meaning they could be targeted. Also if it’s a total war (with or without nukes) I think both sides would target each others commercial shipping. We already plan a blockade on multiple check points, so commercial ships enroute to China would be stopped. And I don’t believe anything but a few Chinese ships/subs will be able to leave the 1st island chain
@11:29 Whoa! The professor's tone of voice changed from neutral to aggressive after mentioning that it's the Conservative Party that started this mess.
Yes, it did. Because they were completely and utterly dishonest about this issue. (By the way, for the avoidance of any doubt, I’m not a Labour voter.)
Given that USA has been able to deal with Cuba since 1903 regarding the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, they should be able to make a deal with the Republic of Mauritius regarding the Diego Garcia base.
Does it deal with Cuba? As far as I know, it sends off a pittance of a check, given that the initial amount was modest and there is no inflation adjustment, each year that the Communist government doesn't cash. It stays within the bounds of what it considers the treaty to be. So far, Cuba hasn't done anything with respect to Guantanamo Bay that has triggered American reaction. But Cuba still considers the base to be an illegal colonial possession.
"Given that USA has been able to deal with Cuba since 1903 regarding the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base" What do you mean by "deal" here? Cuba says the US presence in Guantanamo Bay is illegitimate and wants it back but the US simply refuses. In what way does that imply that they would be able to strike a deal with someone else? (Note, I'm not making any claims here about whether the lease of Guantanamo Bay by the US is legitimate or not.)
@@seneca983 The US liberated Cuba from Spain, of course, Guantanamo Bay is legitimate. Yes hopefully the US will not allow this strategic asset to fall into Chinese hands. The Brits are so dumb to do this.
Good video Prof! Apart from your title, a British Betrayal? - of whom? Sounds rather like Daniel Hannan in the Lords speaking of a shameful surrender by the British. The fact is this was one of the most shameful episodes in British history amounting to a crime against humanity in the way these indigenous people were uprooted from their homeland. And it was the work of the British Labour government - what a disgrace! British administrators referred to the Chagossians as " Man Fridays of dubious origins". And now we have the Tories bleating about surrender and betrayal. British imperialist and colonialist attitudes are still alive and well in certain quarters. Full credit to you Prof for exploring the issue head on.
@@ObieOnce I take your point Obie but it should be noted that the Chagos islanders were officially recognized as an indigenous people by the UN - among other agencies. Leaving the semantic question aside, these people were forcably removed from their homeland by the Brits, after gassing their dogs as a veiled threat of what might happen to them if they resisted. The British colonialists really were merciless, an approach adopted by the successor hegemon, the Americans.
The same words in English like sovereignty and self determination mean different things depending on what time of the day the British Politicians mention them
Just quickly; how is this decision on these islands different to what is happening on the Falkland Islands or Gibraltar? Have you already addressed this in another there video?
@nrs8043 The UK took possession of the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar long before it became a UN Member; neither Argentina nor Spain were British colonies; and both the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar have a settled population very much in favour of remaining part of the UK. Meanwhile, the settled population of the Chagos Islands was forcibly expelled by the British government.
The legal point discussed was not whether Britain took possession of Mauritius and the Chagos Islands lawfully. It was whether once it was in possession of the territories it had the right to separate the Chagos Islands from Mauritius. The ICJ said it didn’t. There are no such issues at play with the Falklands or Gibraltar.
From the pocket of the public to the politicians and their backers' pockets. Politicians give it to the one they have inyerest in, just like the land deals to the natives in British Columbia, Canada.
This sets a precedent for returning other territories; Gibraltar to Spain, Falklands to Argentina, Northern Ireland to Ireland, British bases to Cyprus. Maybe for some, it was mistake but for others, maybe Britain should just settle into quiet retirement, just become a normal European country. Time to go back to the EU? One thing is for certain, the Island of Singapore should go back to Johor’s control, Chinese control is an aberration in the region
Please correct me if im wrong - places in the UN list of colonies and Non self governing territories mean ppl there got to vote which way they go Chagos lslands was taken off that list And ppl there werent happy about not being asked Sth that sounded all to familiar
The piece does not cover the descendants of the original Chagosian inhabitants who originally inhabited the island. UK based diaspora Chagossians get no say on the island. Only Marutius CHagossians get a "say" under the guidance and influence of Maruitious government power. The question remains unanswered by this video. Mauritius gets rights from being a (emphasis on colonially designated) political unit historically with the Chagos islands. Descendants of the original Chagossians can claim ownership of the land as per the principle of blood soil. Correct? Ergo Chagossians and only Chagosians get to decide the future of the islands. What happened instead is this "UK of 1800 and 1903 political calculus decision" gets superimposed onto modern day value by way of "decolonization." Lets adhere to the principle of blood soil. The descendants of the original inhabitants get the only say by way of referendum.
You raise a great point. Britain doesn’t get to keep control over the Chagos Islands because it split them off from from Mauritius, but Mauritius does get to keep the islands because Britain added them to it.
The comment is valid. I think the stumbling block is that the separation of Northern Ireland from Ireland happened when there was no UN. However, the predecessor organization, the League of Nations, already existed in 1921. I don't know if this can help :)
Perhaps it was a colonial relationship if you go way back in history ( Fred. Engels described it so), but of course the Gaels themselves were colonizers. At the time of independence, Ireland was an integral part of the UK of GB and Ireland with the same constitutional rights.
Is China giving up Tibet or the Xinjiang provinces? Or Inner Mongolia? The Chinese nationalist movement colonised Formosa. Does the UN demand these be returned?
China will not give up Tibet and Xinjiang. The status of these areas does not even affect the UN. It cannot be compared to the Chagos Islands topic. The historical and legal background is different. If you want to draw a parallel, then Scotland and the United Kingdom, Hawaii and the USA, Tuva and Russia, Sikkim and India can be brought up. These are more similar to the topic you raised. But even for these, the UN and international court do not ask the United Kingdom, USA, Russia, India to give up these areas.
Sri Lanka has already offered Hambantota port to China for 99 years. Maldives will cut a similar deal soon. It is of utmost importance that the base in Diego Garcia is not given up.
My defence requires that I keep your land because of what China, Maldives and Sri lanka are doing, sounds exactly like the guy who invades another country for the purposes of its security and to prevent land owner from joining a defence pact called NATO.
Yup. Just see the seethe when a generic diplomatic negotiation over the Falklands is suggested. Even worse with Scottish independence and Irish reunification
@@User-he6zd It's not just the UK. Russia and Turkey both feel aggrieved at their loss of empire. After a lot of reflection I believe what is called the "international system" is really the American system for reeling in these imperial powers. The 5 Permanent Members of the UNSC are the USA + 4 former imperial powers.
It's about the loss of power more than the territory itself. The english are more livid because they had to concede to the lobbying of African Union and India.
Interesting, thanks! Who do you think will support Turkey and Northern Cyprus more: the UK or the Republic of Cyprus? I mean, if the Republic of Cyprus demands that the UK return the territories to them, what would be Northern Cyprus's position? And would Turkey's stance be any more nuanced?
Britain signed Treaties with the Republic of Cyprus alone, concerning the bases, and not to Turkey's puppet regime. There is a clause in the Treaty that if Britain will abandon the Bases, they can only transfer them to the Republic of Cyprus
@@VladTevezif you're relying on Britain to keep their promise and honour their word then you're royally screwed!! Personally if Britain withdrew the "sovereignty " designation, meaning the SBA is regarded as cypriot territory and a small territorial border changes were made then I'd welcome the uk staying in cyprus for the greater good of all. Britain is no longer in the eu nor is cyprus in nato but many don't realise that over the decades how common interests have in many ways merged. True Britain slipped cyprus a poison chalice but that can be overcomed and resolved. Whilst we are at it let's not forget british presence in cyprus goes back to near a thousand years.
Sir, how is chagos island which is almost 10 thousand km away from britain is necessary for Britain's defence? Is the sole importance of that island was to stay relevant in Indo-pacific or just a natural fear of loosing remaining territory is making people angst?
Britain's decision to hand sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius caused a massive stir in certain parts of the British political establishment. Many even called it a betrayal. So, was this the right decision? Or should Britain have held on to the islands? Let me know your thoughts.
Never heard of the Chagos Islands before today. One thing is for sure, right-wing politics is the same in every country at the moment, facts don't matter, just stir up hatred and division. In general, I would support decolonialization, but then it begs the question on how far back in history do you go with it? should America give back the land to the native Americans? that would be something. There's never an easy answer.
@@Todd.Bhas nothing to do with the right wing
@@marcellusnichols7384 So, in mentioning that the right in Britain is calling this a betrayal and seeking to use the situation for political gain, even though the process was started by their own administration. has nothing to do with right-wing politics? Sounds like the same tactics right-wing politics take in every country. The video wasn't specifically about that, but he mentioned it and I responded to it.
@@Todd.B American conservatism doesn't represent the conservative parties of the world.
@@enduser8410 yea, it kind of does. How is what the Prof. said any different than the Republican Party using the Afghanistan withdrawal for political gain, when it was Trump who met with the Taliban at Camp David and set that withdrawal date?
Boris Johnson was on GB News saying that Mauritius is too far from the islands to claim sovereignty…. Now I’m no pilot, but I’m pretty sure Mauritius is closer to them than the UK….
Haha! Can't argue with that logic. :-) (Seriously, did he really say that!?)
@@JamesKerLindsay yes a few days ago!
Someone should tell BoJo India has been an independent country for a few decades now.
@@rossellinirossicalrossc3507how about Mayotte Island of Comoros
It's Island belongs to Comoros
And it's under French colonial rules
Gosh - Boris the Buffoon! He always has a firm grasp of geopolitics
Another key difference between the chagos islands and other overseas territories like the Falklands, Gibraltar, etcetera, is that this is the only situation where the UK explicitly deported the entire native population. Falklanders, Gibraltarians, and so on all overwhelmingly want to remain a part of the UK also, unlike the chagossians who reasonably hold a negative attitude against the UK for displacing them. Needless to say, saying this sets some sort of precedent is silly to say the least.
From everything i have read the Chagossians seemingly wish it to remain British. They dislike Mauritius more than the UK as they were mistreated by Mauritius too.
Ironically, had the UK let them stay, they would likely want nothing to do with Mauritius and prefer staying part of the UK.
@@Dominik-lc4pl precisely
The UK settled those places with the explicit goal of getting people like you to argue bullshit like that lol in case of Falklands with the explicit goal of using 30.000 settlers to claim more territorial waters with potential oil reserves than the 46 million Argentinians. It's in plain language in British Government documents.
All after a well-known history of Argentinian exploitation to a level you'd expect from a crime mafia which my country, to our shame, has not opposed.
@@Dominik-lc4plit was American policy that instigated this and not British policy. Britain was bankrupted after fighting two world wars and was in debt to America. So, when America asked britain to do its dirty work it had no choice and now britain is seen as the bad guy while Americans remain unscathed.
Thank you. Would've been nice to see at least a passing mention of how the indigenous Chagossians themselves view this news, though
Thanks. You make an excellent point. That’s the sad thing. They really weren’t considered in this whole story. I did have a bit I this, but cut it out. I felt that it sort of made the point that their interests weren’t really considered in the end. One gets the sense that Mauritius just wants the territory. It really doesn’t care that much about the inhabitants.
It would be incorrect to consider Chagossians as "indigenous." The islands were uninhabited upon Portuguese discovery and prior to French settlement.
@@redbeangreenbean the land does belong first and foremost to the Chaggosians, and then to the Mauritius.
The colonialists are not in the equation.
@@matthewharper4605 try as hard as you can to justify colonialism. That's what you're good at apparently
@@Omer1996E.C The Chagossians are colonists. None of their ancestors predate the colony. You, in fact, are trying to justify their coloinialism.
I'm a bit skeptical by the "diplomatic headache" argument. Was there really that much of a stir caused by these islands? I've heard that some believe this might "help Ukraine by taking this issue off the table" with the African bloc at the UN...but...really?
I don't think this dispute would really make any government change their mind about the supposed hypocrisy of Western governments vis a vis international law. Most countries like to talk about international law when it's convenient for them, and otherwise ignore it.
Especially as it in 99 Years time 😂
Many African nations will despise us as imperialist western powers no matter what we do. Fight Al Shabaab? Fight AQ? Invest? Give aid-- or not-- to countries with corruption issues? Politely plead with Uganda to not execute gays? Believe it or not, all have been decried as military, financial or cultural imperialism
take for example USA with Israel and its treatment of Palestinians
Except sometimes that one nation or a couple of votes from a bloc they belong to can be important. That Realpolitik is where the idealism of international law meets the road.
Ukraine issue will still be held up by Golan Heights.
Your ability to succinctly parse out, analyze, and summarize these issues keeps me coming back. Another good one.
I remember reading about the plight of the Chagos Islanders more than twenty years ago. It has always bothered me that, for all the wrongs of history that cannot be put right, here was a problem we could fix (I'm from the UK). I was dismayed when David Miliband deliberately made the situation worse in 2014 (and still wonder why he is held in high esteem). But I am glad that we've finally done the right thing. Naysayers be damned.
@EmmaMaySeven it was made worse by Boris Johnson who was foreign secretary and said in print in a memo published by Wiki leaks "I'm not handing over the Strategic United States base to that bunch of monkeys".
I agree. This was a real problem for Britain. It’s just depressing to see how much uninformed commentary there has been on this issue from certain quarters.
Done the right thing by giving the islands to Mauritius who never owned them?
@@Denime Of course! Don't you remember when Spain gave its colonies (Guam, Puerto Rico, Philippines) to the United States? Decolonization = recolonization.
Seems a bit odd that Britain could not detach the Chagos islands from Mauritius but they could attach them in the first place. Seems like replacing one remote colonial overlord with another rather than an actual process of decolonization.
Chagos islands were part of colonial Mauritius and under their quasi-autonomous constitution, they had a very strong claim
They did not attach them, it was part of Mauritius during the french period
@@joenroute9646 So the French attached it then, for the same reasoning .. not because they naturally went together, but to make it easier to govern. It's classic colonialism.
@@shurqeh Not classic , because these island was inhabited.
@@joenroute9646 uninhabited. They were historically used by Maldivians as a base for fishing operations but they weren't permanently occupied until the end of the 18th century ... by the dutch / french / then English who imported slaves to help farm coconuts. If anyone has any claim based on historical usage it would be the people of the Maldives
Britain must give up on falkland too.
Why? Serious question. It is a completely different issue. Why does Argentina have a claim just because they are off its coast. Does the US have a claim on the Caribbean islands for that reason? Argentina was a colonial creation too. Why does it have a right to another colonial territory?
Argentinians Will never surrender. Many brits even couldn't point las Malvinas out on a map@@JamesKerLindsay
@@JamesKerLindsaythe difference is UK is not superpower anymore . small economy compare to USA . Right now UK economy is broke . Uk just become USA followers 😂
@@JamesKerLindsay Mauritius is even more of a colonial creation too it doesn’t have an indigenous group before European discovery
@@theMOCmaster The difference between Chagos and Falklands/Gibraltar is the islanders have self-determination-- the Chagos islanders were exiled from their homes to make way for the base.
Very detailed video on this little known controversy that had been in the news for the last few years.
What makes me wonder though, is that, without ceding control over Diego Garcia, or allowing resettlement there, is genuine resettlement really possible considering the size of the other islands?
The consistant conservative British rage at the violation against their principled stance of just...owning land somewhere, is astounding to me as a very non British person
Why astounding? Look at how they fought against handing India back to Indians.
@@indrajitgupta3280the hypocrisy of this is also astounding bearing in mind India historically reigned over NINE empires before the British, who only ever had one.
And why can't they just "...own land somewhere"? you absolutely astound me with your lack of understanding that, yes, people are indeed allowed to settle unsettled islands.
Whatever happens, I don’t see that US base moving.
It's a British base that the British allow the United States to use
The yanks never really went back home after WW2, did they. 😂
The base will stay. India and US have asked as much of the Mauritians. I believe the deal was conditional on that.
The whether the legal right to the particular island has been given to Mauritians is unclear
@@010Jordi rather, they are told to let them use it .
Western man will do western things
Love ur content, greetings from egypt.
Chagos is NOT British. All former inhabitants of Chagos were relocated to Mauritius and Seychelles. Majority of those natives went to Mauritius.
@@JohnNjengaCOCO there are no natives
@@ObieOnce the UK does not own the Islands
@@ebiekem true or no, irrelevant to my comment.
There are no natives.
@@ObieOnce How come? I think you can reasonably say that the descendants of the first inhabitants are natives. You could say that Chagos is different because a) it was settled more recently than many other places, and b) the first settlers were brought to there by Europeans rather than coming there on their own. However, I don't see why either of these facts would be crucial for the definition of "native".
@@seneca983 the people did not originate there.
Nobody calls European people who settled new lands natives, the same applies to these people. And they didn't even do the discovery part, like Europeans.
Prof,thanks for the good work. Could you do one on the disputed islands in the South China sea, Tibet,the dispute between India and China over their border and finally on Japan and China's dispute over some islands?
Mauritian here
The situation is pretty simple
Seychelles used to be part of the Mauritian colony before being carved out in 1907
Had the British Empire done so prior to a UN resolution of 1960 forbidding dismembering a colony prior to independence, keeping the Chagos Archipelago would have been legal
Mauritius was coerced into accepting this dismembering and the population of the island was forcibly expelled
Mauritius had the law and international support on this issue
The solution is a winwin deal for Mauritius, the UK, the US and the Chagossians
Mauritius is friendly with China but closer to India so those crying about chinese intrusion are clueless
Thank you. You are absolutely right. I didn’t go into details, but the key reason why the ICJ case doesn’t have a direct impact on Cyprus is because the island became independent prior to Resolution 1514. It may be a legal technicality, but in law, legal technicalities matter.
@@JamesKerLindsay
Mauritius has a last territorial dispute with France over Tromelin
It's an even more interesting case as it's an issue born out of unprecise terminology in the 1814 Treaty of Paris between the British Empire and Napoleonic France
No forced islander there, no UN resolution, just a matter of pure law
@@JamesKerLindsay does this mean that ex-colony countries are formed just on the basis of the colonial administrative divisions in place om the date of this resolution? Seems a bit arbitrary. Raising the question if the ex-colony country has a real historical tie to the contested territory or is it also politically opportunistic?!
Friendly and probably indebted to China.
@@Jersey1971 Nope. Mauritian here too. We have vastly closer ties, economic, cultural, and otherwise with India than with China. President-elect Trump's China concerns are utterly misplaced. Even in the highly unlikely instance of the Chinese asking Mauritius for one of the Chagos islands (because they are well aware of our ties with India, and the fact that 2/3s of Mauritians are of Indian stock), India would never allow it to happen.
We argue that the recent agreement between the UK and Mauritius perpetuates colonial injustices, undermining the sovereignty and self-determination of the Maldivian people.
Here are some key points raised in this analysis:
Colonial Legacy and Continued Injustices:
1. Separation of Chagos: We argue that the 1834 British survey was a precursor to the eventual separation of the Chagos Archipelago from the Maldives. This separation, we contend, was a colonial act that continues to have negative consequences for the Maldivian people.
2. Mauritius as a Neocolonial State: We view Mauritius as a neocolonial state created by the British. We suggest that its claim to the Chagos Archipelago is based on colonial-era divisions and therefore perpetuates historical injustices.
3. True Decolonization: We argue that true decolonization requires the restoration of the Chagos Archipelago to its pre-colonial status as part of the Maldivian territory.
Indigenous Rights and Cultural Appropriation:
1. Indigenous Maldivian Population: We emphasize that the Maldivian people are one of the longest-surviving indigenous populations with a rich cultural heritage.
2. French Colonial Impact: We highlight the French colonial legacy, particularly the forced settlement of enslaved laborers, as an act of cultural appropriation.
3. Prioritizing Indigenous Rights: We argue that the rights of the indigenous Maldivian people should be prioritized over the claims of colonial settlers.
This analysis offers a critical perspective on the historical and contemporary issues surrounding the Maldives and the Chagos Archipelago. It raises important questions about the nature of decolonization, sovereignty, and indigenous rights.
Different stakeholders, including the UK, Mauritius, and the colonial settlers-community, having their own claims and interests, can engage in constructive dialogue and seeking peaceful solutions.
To gain a deeper understanding of this issue, it is crucial to consider various viewpoints and historical evidence. Engaging in constructive dialogue and seeking peaceful solutions is essential to address the legacy of colonialism and work towards a just and equitable future for all involved.
Diego Garcia gonna remain for the British or Mauritius, is going to be an extremely long long diplomatic fight.But let's not forget ,about the serious and shameful breach of human rights done by the British against the thousands islanders.First their dogs were poisoned ,not a single one of them was left alive. Then ,the islanders were forcefully removed from their native island and put in boats and sent to Mauritius ,Seychelles and Madagascar.
Mauritius never owned Chagos, end of story. Sorry that all your buzzwords don't hold up to fact.
Why not grant Chagos Islands to the Chagosian people? They haven't been allowed to go back for 50 years!!!!
There are no "chagosian" people. First people to settle we're french who later brought in slaves.
There are No native people,only Former slaves that have No Claim to that Land.
@@sd-wc9ep Yep, but they have been there for generations as such they are considered to be natives
@@sd-wc9ep they have claim to land that will be the only reparations available you cannot move people like that its crime genocide and restitution needs to be paid even the slave owners where paid after the people where freed what more those who where slaves justice is them getting the islands and yes when the islands where there the people where living there
Do you expect ten thousand Chagossians to rule a group of islets ?
In any case, the archipelago is Mauritian territory and as such belongs to all Mauritians
@@varoonnone7159 so you don't think a people forced to relocate don't deserve their home back. That's a really cruel line of thinking.
Even if territorially it goes to the Mauritians, the Chagosians should still be allowed to return. Even if independence is not on the table, AT LEAST some autonomy is fine.
This to me seem to be a tempest in a tea pot... Ultimately this issue is related to the EEZ around the Chagos Islands, with a Mauritius simply seeking future economic windfalls, not about indigenous people striving for self determination.
From my understanding the are not any indigenous people of the Chagos Islands because the French imported the people to these islands a an agricultural larbor force. Is this not correct? Thus if the islands were uninhabited at the point of a colonial taking control, they have the strongest position to determine the political construct of these islands.
A claim by Mauritius to far removed islands is inherently weak because the Chagos Islands
was originally an administrative construct established by the British Colonial Office to manage theses islands.
It seems to me skilled lawyers could successfully agrue a success for either side on this issue, because no one has an inherently strong claim to determine the outcome.
This will be an intresting situation to follow given the resolution will have long term impacts. Great topic, thanks for the podcast!
All colonies are administrative constructs, the size and distance of the area never really matter. The whole of Mauritius is made up of imported labor from Africa and India.
AFAIK, Mauritius was also uninhabited before the French took control.
Did you somehow miss the rulings by three international courts in favour of Mauritius ?
Very interesting Professor, thanks!
Thank you!
@@JamesKerLindsayI just wanted once to hear Ker-Lindsay say: COLONIALISM IS WRONG, AND WRONGS SHOULD BE CORRECTED.
As for many thinking the era of decolonization being behind us: Never forget that Russia still has to begin its decolonization. Be it Siberia, or many of the other nations, ethnicities and cultures it quietly gobbled up.
WTF does have to do with this exactly? What territory thousands of miles away has Russia displaced people from
China and India, too.
Wrong video 🤣
@@CedarHunt It comes down to the will of the people, fundamentally, and it's hard to say whether China and India represent massive divisions.
The US, Canada, Australia, as well
I am fairly confident that most of the archipelago is just a few metres above sea level. When the Totten and the West Antarctic ice shelf melts .........!
So does the British Isles. Let us see who will be affected by the melting ice.
Glad to be back with geopolitics the past week has been bs with this hurricane.
Man I hope you are being sarcastic
I have to thank you for this precise & honest report on the Chagos Archipelago issue as opposed to other reports which are purposely overriding the legal aspect.
There's a huge difference between entering into a negotiation process and actually negotiating a poor deal.
It’s actually a rather good deal from sounds of it. UK retains full control over Diego Garcia (to the point of exercising Mauritius sovereignty over the islands). Besides, going by the terrible deal the Conservatives negotiated over Brexit, I’m sure that this Labour agreement was much better than we could have expected otherwise.
@JamesKerLindsay
The deal seems incredibly one-sided. In this era where military bases are being built on fake islands in international waters in the South China Sea, Britain is giving away its strategic islands for free.
@@JamesKerLindsay it's a shame that you enter party politics. Illustrative, I fear, of UK academia as a whole.
I get the impression that the Tories are totally outraged over the fact that they didn't get to make the announcement.
Who will rid me of this troublesome UN?
Britain removed a piece of territory from Ireland and planted it with people from Scotland and England
I understand that the UK would rather have facilitated ‘Home Rule’ for the whole island, but the passionately entrenched community in the North (who were indeed mainly Protestant ‘immigrants’ from Scotland and England) and, of course, the results of the plebiscite, gave them little choice but to hold on to those six Northern counties. To this day, the UK wants to see Ireland politically reunited, but it is forced to go very slowly in the hope that old wounds progressively heal and that there is continued cultural convergence over the next couple of generations.
The 3 key issues for when the Treaty is published will be 1) the renewal mechanism after 99 years, 2) any early termination clauses and 3) any prohibition on other military bases on the Changos.
I'm an American who is a staunch Tory supporter. Thanks to your video, I shifted my views on this case. I still think that the lease to Diego Garcia was incorrect, perhaps Britain could have maintained full control of it instead of making it a 99 year lease. You have now gotten me to support the return. Thank you!
Thank you so much. Yes, there was a lot more to this case than the media presented or politicians admitted. I thought it would help to explain the full story.
How can Britain have "full control" when the sovereignty belongs to Mauritius ?
Great video James thanks for the amazing work. In fact Chagos opinon was a small part of my phd thesis. Even though I acknowledge there is a potential for Republic of Cyprus to push for this, I assume the regional dynamics and the Cyprus Problem itself wont make to be considered. However, I wonder another dimension of the ICJ opinion on Chagos, whether return of Chagos islanders can make a precedence over "right to return" in Cyprus settlement efforts ? Considering previous references on 'absolute majority' of communities in their 'constituent state' which we would argue it limits Greek Cypriot refugees 'right to return.' Similarly but lesser extent to Turkish Cypriots as well. I would love to hear your thoughts over Cyprus once we have a chance to have a coffee :) all the best! mertkan
Hi James, you omitted the fact that when the UK created the BIOT it also took islands that were part of the Seychelles but that it split these islands off and returned them to the Seychelles
I never heard about these ıslands, and also I didn't know much about how UN court work, Thank you nvery much telling us this useful knowledge
Thank you so much. I am really glad it helped. Sadly, the media coverage on this was rather poor. Very little was done to explain the full background.
@@JamesKerLindsay thank you Professor
Professor I have a question. You said in the video that Mauritius would begin the resettlement of any Chagossians who were away from there home. My question to you is what mechanism by the international community is being used to ensure that it is the Chagossians who are being resettled and not, let’s say, other Mauritians from Mauritius? I would also like to know how are resettlement issues monitored in the international community, if any recent examples of such. Thanks for the video!
Does it really matter at this point if they got th freedom to resettle it under their state's sovereignty?
@@Omer1996E.C if it breaks the promise Mauritius made I would assume it does matter
@@garrettallen7427 which promise?
@@Omer1996E.C the promise that says “Mauritius will now be free to implement a resettlement program on the islands of the Chagos archipelago, other then Diego Garcia” resettlement here being the Chagossians
@@garrettallen7427 lol, you can't understand English 🤣
This is not a promise to resettle, but a promise to act freely as a sovereign state. They'll now have the freedom to resettle them, and the freedom to not resettle.
Stop trying to justify illegal colonialism
"We tend to think that the era of decolonisation is over" - Unfortunately, nobody told Vladimir Putin.
Not all conquests are colonial conquests.
@@seneca983 double standards ?
@@ektekp I don't mean a conquest is morally less objectionable just because it's not a *colonial* conquest but another type of conquest. This is bit of a technicality.
@@seneca983 Do you seriously believe a country of 17.1M sq km has no colonies ?
@@ektekp Well, I didn't give a definitive ruling on that. It's a bit of a semantic issue and IMHO not that important. Russian territory certainly includes a lot of past conquests. Do those count as colonies? That depends on how you define "colony".
One possible definition is based on how they're administered. E.g. the UK had a bunch of colonies that were *technically* not a part of the UK but still, in practice, under its rule. This definition is why e.g. some have insisted that French Algeria wasn't a colony but an integral part of France. Of course, not all accept that kind of definition.
Another possible definition would be that conquests by European powers (and Japan) in the 1500s and later are colonial conquests but e.g. earlier conquests aren't. Thus you could say that e.g. the Ottoman empire didn't have colonies but the British empire did. This definition could include the Russian conquests in the 1600s and later.
Yet another definition could be that conquests that overseas and sufficiently distant count but conquests of a land neighbors don't. Were e.g. Alsace & Lorraine German (or French) colonies? Usually they're not called that. This definition would seemingly exclude the Russian conquests, though maybe you could count the ones that are really far away from the lands Muscovy previously held.
I’m just a little bit vague on the connection of ‘administration of Diego Garcia being in Mauritius’. I didn’t see a clear path of ownership going to Mauritius of the islands, with Mauritius being 800 miles away.
And that’s the really interesting point. I was hoping someone would raise this. These colonial creations were often arbitrary decisions taken by colonial powers. But once taken, the lines on maps became sacrosanct. This in fact explains why Africa has been remarkably free of territorial wars. The colonial lines showed little respect for pre-existing realities. But once they were established they were largely respected. There is no obvious reason why the Chagos Islands should belong to Mauritius other than the fact that Britain decided that they formed a colony as part of Mauritius and having made that decision it had to abide by it.
@@JamesKerLindsay : I kind of thought so. My impression is that that’s the case in many other locations as well. I.e. India, Pakistan and general area, among others.
@@JamesKerLindsay Well yes because territorial integrity applies to colonial creations as much as it applies to UN member states, pre-colonial states, and countries in any other form. Disputes will arise. Biden may be unwell, but he was correct to applaud Mauritius and UK for working it out.
Did you somehow forget that the archipelago was attached to the colony of Mauritius for over three centuries ?
Thanks, fortunately it's OK that you don't see the connection because the UN general assembly, the ICJ and even the government of the UK sees it and that's what matters.
Since the Chagos Islands were only administered from Mauritius as a convenience for France, they were never a part of Mauritius.
You're doing everything possible to say that the British were in there 3k years ago. Get lost. This land belongs to Mauritius whether you like it or not
@@Omer1996E.C How ridiculous. Chagos was uninhabited until the French found them. If anything they belong to the Seychelles or India.
@@stunimbus1543 ok, give it back to them, then
@@Omer1996E.C ah so now I understand. Your just anti-British. How many other prejudices do you have?
@@stunimbus1543 anti-colonial to be precise. No French islands, no british islands, no US hegemony, no Chinese debt-trap, No Russian Wagner, No EU intervention.
The only thing that matters is what the people there right now want. It's abhorred to consider anything else. If they want to leave and join Mauritius it should be allowed. If they want to be independent, they should also be allowed. If they want to stay with the UK - It should be so. Land is just land, but a nation is a group of people.
Nobody has a historical claim to anything, if you believe that then you must believe Russia when it claims parts of Ukraine are historically theirs or Israel when it takes land from Palestinians or China when it takes land from nearby nations. How far back do you need to go to feel good about yourself? People have homes, families and lives there right now which are going to be ruined and they did absolutely nothing to deserve it.
It's a military base
Who cares that much what the 'international community' thinks. You can't please everyone, all of the time, and nor should you try to. And most countries that lobbied for this, are just out for their own strategic interests, so the UK should follow their own interests.
Once again Great Britain demonstrated pragmatism in its foreign policy. While the whole archipelago was retained by Britain from the colonial time, it was creating 2 main problems: breach of international law (resolution 1514) and breach of moral duty owed to the chagossian. That said, Britain (rightly mentioned by our honourable professor) was found in an award stance when calling other countries to order and respect the international law. In other words it didn’t walk its talk. It could seem to a number of ignorant people that Britain has betrayed its interests, but in my view - it appears to be exactly the opposite. Firstly: The Anglo-American troops will still have possession over Diego Garcia island where the base is - so really, nothing changes from a strategic point of view. Secondly, by allowing Mauritians to return the sovereignty they will kill 2 birds with one stone: first one is Britain will no longer need to support financially those territories hence it’s a win and secondly, they will become one of the major employer for those Chagossians who are so fiercely claiming those territories, however, Britain would only solidify its stance, since if the base was closed, those territories would face economic problems. And last but not least: on the international scene, Britain will deprive African leaders of their “trump card” against them in terms of “respecting of international law”.
Politics is a chess game. One should be able to sacrifice tactically in order to win strategically.
All the way down the history line, Britain always knew what it was doing and if one take a hindsight on the chain of events and occurrences, Britain always came out as a winner, albeit at first it seemed as an insane move.
Thank you for explaining this story ❤❤❤ xxxx
Thanks so much. Sadly, amongst all the sensationalistic reporting on this, very few took the time to explain the real issues and why it had to be done.
Isn't Mauritius real buddy-buddy with mainland China? I've heard they are, but I can't be sure of the reliability of the source. But if they are buddy-buddy with mainland China, then... yeah... you can't give up territory to them...
Maybe the uk should have been a better friend maybe?
But yeah screw those chicoms
@@eliassolomou980 We live in the world the way it is, not in the world the way it should have been. And in the world the way it is, you can't give up territory to mainland China or its allies.
@@benjauron5873 no, the world is the way it is because of the men and the policies you defend, the excuses and hall passes you condone and above all because you have an inability to differentiate between right and wrong.
@@eliassolomou980 I'm sorry, have we met? Because you sure seem to know a lot about me. Though all of it wrong. Create straw men much?
@@benjauron5873 met? Thank God no but with your views of justification I definitely know your type.
The leader of Mauritius thanked African Union and India for help getting the islands back. He specifically thanked Modi by name.
Meanwhile Modi continues to commit human rights abuses in Kashmir.
It is the African Union which did the main job not India
@@neofilsyea, keep ur personal opoinions to urself. We r talking facts here
@@akashbanerjee6272 Facts . You mean Indian propaganda? Check the tension between India and Canada for the assassination of Canadian citizen
@@neofils african union is silly these people mistreat black people ijn the island they where there before the indians yet they dont have any political power african union could have used that as a negotiating point current these issues of black poverty then we will get you the islands very silly
For centuries, the Maldivians have used the Chagos as a base for fishing expeditions. People would camp on the islands, catch fish, and cook, smoke, and dry them. Additionally, the exiled Maldive King Hassan IX (also known as Dom Manoel), while in Cochin, describes himself in his letters patent of 1561 as King of the Maldive islands, including seven of the islands of Pullobay, referring to Fōlhavahi or the Chagos, and this letter survives in a Portuguese archive in Lisbon.
They never settled the islands. It'd be like saying the Netherlands owns the Dogger Bank because they fished there.
No, there was never a settlement, therefore it's not theirs.
If someone could explain a single reason why retaining control of these islands will benefit me or 99% of other British people, I am all ears. Otherwise, it seems sensible and fair to walk away.
Having a naval base in the indian ocean could be helpful if there's a war.
Well explained and it was high time the UK returned the island to Mauritius. Now it’s Cyprus turn to reclaim its territories from the UK!
How about you make a case to Turkey to return Northern Cyprus back to Cyprus???? Oh no, that's not part of the anti-British narrative,
@@stephentaylor2119 Well, Cyprus is a completely diffrent Island to Great Britain, so I don't see how it's anti-British.
Where would the Israelis escape to?
As the Seychelles were detached from Mauritius during colonial times, will Mauritius now be using the same UN Resolution 1514 to pursue their return?
Why does Mauritius have the sovereighty over the Chagos? Shouldn't the Chagos be a new sovereign nation instead?
Shouldn't Scotland be a new country, start the referendum
Because the UK was to return the situation to the exact status quo of 1968, the offending party can't claim new facts on the ground.
It would be too small to be viable as an independent country.
If I got that right, the UK had to give up Chagos as it was a retained part of another country following declonisation? If that's so, how does this differ to the situation in Ireland where Britain retained the north?
Given that empire and colonialism belong to the history books yes it's very welcome that the UK relinquish control of the Chagos islands .
I don't see this as any type of betrayal whatsoever , however I do find it strange that they've been handed over to Mauritius , as far as I know Mauritius has never ruled over the Chagos islands .
A better solution would've been to have spoken with the Chagoan people and to come up with a more acceptable solution .
No wonder the Chagoans are up in arms over this deal and feel left out of the own country yet again .
I can't help think that the massive American air/naval base on Diego Garcia has had an influence on this decision .
@roddychristodoulou9111 The Chagos Islands and Agalega were always part of the Sovereign territory of Mauritius.
I think what may be most worrisome for the UK-US partnership in BIOT is the Indian and Chinese peer competition in the greater Indian Ocean region and either's influence over Mauritius most specifically.. After the Indians reportedly built what is at the very least a dual use logistical hub in a remote corner of the Mauritian archipelago, China will have its eye on increasing its blue water naval presence in the region.
It's not a dual use facility. Agalega is a military base under construction.
India is the primary security guarantor of Mauritius, Seychelles and Maldives. It will obviously monitor what goes on in Diego Garcia.
@@VTh-f5x I was somewhat humourously alluding to the Indians denying it was for military purposes.
I think the perspectiv is important.
As a person who is mauritian or who does not want the british to have a presence there, it makes sense to say Britain should return the islands.
If I would be a british person, I would not want my government to give up territory. And as currently, they already have more british and americans on these island(military personal), even if the "natives" were wrongfully expelled, I would be against them.
I really can understand both sides of the conflict.
And while I personal have a relativ neutral and mybe even a little bit positiv opinion on this decision, I totaly think that the british government (right and left) have done something against the interests of the british people and their country.
A strategic defeat implemented by our own government without a fight. We're so fucked.
Did you watch the video?
@@JamesKerLindsay Yes and my comment still stands. Labour have handed over territory for zero gain which has weakened our standing on the international stage.
@@lennonkelly-james2693 What standing? The Tory government turned UK into a joke. How many Tory PM tried it in the last couple of years?
Vote for Reform UK Limited.
@@JamesKerLindsay I guess if he has a different opinion it must because he didn't watch the video. The gall...
I feel like if you just remove Diego García out of the deal. This would fly through.
This does affect the cases of Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands, without mentioning that these cases have already been affected by situations like Hong Kong, Macau, the Panama Canal Zone, among others, where an existing state has sovereignty and so exclusive self-determination is not applicable, since that would mean violating the principle of territorial integrity.
You are distorting what you read in paragraph 6 of UNGA resolution 1514 (XV), the paragraph does not say “colonial country”, it just says “country”, which includes both non-self-governing territories and sovereign states, and the discussions that have taken place since then all confirm this understanding, for example, during the fourth committee of the Special Committee on Decolonization it was proposed a new language for the paragraph: “and where there is no dispute over sovereignty”. The new language was rejected, but the various justifications are what matters. First, the new language was inapplicable to the eleven territories that were being discussed: “American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, Turks and Caicos Islands, and the United States Virgin Islands”. They said that there was no alternative for these territories but self-determination, which already marks a difference between them and Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands, which lawfully belong to Spain and Argentina respectively. Second, “it introduced conditions that could have unexplored ramifications”, referring to disputes like that of Western Sahara, where Morocco claims and occupies a territory without being the sovereign, just as the International Court of Justice already determined, so that population does enjoy an exclusive right to self-determination. Third, some members said that the new language “was unnecessary”, since the paragraph already limits the right of self-determination in cases where there is a violation of the principle of territorial integrity, it clearly says any “country”, not “colonial country”. UNGA resolution 2625 (XXV) also mentions and explains self-determination and it ends reserving that same thing, this is, that self-determination cannot be used to harm the territorial integrity of a state. Accordingly, resolutions that deal with the cases of Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands do not apply exclusive self-determination to these populations, not only that, but also mention that the plebiscites carried out by the United Kingdom in these territories are contraventions of the relevant resolutions and also that these situations are violations of territorial integrity. In one resolution specifically, the British government wanted to include self-determination for the Falkland Islands, but it was rejected outright by the General Assembly, continuing with the same logic: Argentine territorial integrity and the well-being and self-governance of Falkland Islanders, but no exclusive self-determination.
How does the case of Chagos affect Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands? Put simply, if the Chagossians, the real (brutally evicted) inhabitants of Chagos, are finally allowed to return to their home and they are not granted exclusive self-determination by the United Kingdom because Chagos is indisputably a Mauritian territory, then the inhabitants of Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands are not granted that privilege either. As Rosalyn Higgins, British judge and former president of the ICJ, wrote, if Hong Kong, Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands are indeed Chinese, Spanish and Argentine territories, then the population does not enjoy an exclusive right to self-determination, their self-determination is one and the same with that of the rest of the population of those countries, they are at best entitled to their well-being and self-governance, but the territory needs to be reintegrated to the legitimate sovereign. If international law were to choose another path, then it would legitimize invading territories and then make the population decide the fate of the territory, just like in various cases all over the world (Tibet, the West Bank, Crimea, among others). International law should be consistent and it is, no matter how much some people make an effort to distort what it says.
Edit:
Gibraltar is part of Spain, the Falkland Islands and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands are part of Argentina, Chagos is part of Mauritius, Akrotiri and Dhekelia are part of Cyprus (along with Northern Cyprus), and so are Hong Kong, and Macau part of China, the Panama Canal Zone part of Panama and so on and on... it seems that the British government only cares about self-determination when the population looks European, yes for Falkland Islanders, no for Chagossians... I will not subscribe to such discriminatory policy, the application of self-determination is based on sovereignty, not on colour.
The application of self determination is given to the population that actually lives in the place. Since everybody in the Falkland uniformly wishes to remain British it would a complete violation of their right to self determination to take that away from them and hand their homeland over to the sovereignty of another country which they have no desire to be a part of, te same is true of Gibraltar.
@@sirsurnamethefirstofhisnam7986 No, sorry, that is not how it works. As I have demonstrated juridically and ethically, the right of peoples to self-determination does apply to any human population, but it is not meant to apply to any human population exclusively. In other words, Falkland Islanders, Gibraltarians, and Chagossians do have the right to self-determination, but in an inclusive way, this is, along with the Argentines, Spanish, and Mauritians respectively, their right to self-determination and one and the same. As all international organizations and documents, including the International Court of Justice, explain, the principle works hand by hand with that of territorial integrity, in other words, it applies to the permanent population within the borders of a legal political unit. The political units in these cases specifically are, of course, Argentina (including the Falkland Islands, since they are legally an usurped part of that state), Spain (including Gibraltar), and Mauritius (including Chagos). The logic behind this is clear and I have already explained it in the original comment: the territory of a state belongs to the entire permanent population of that state and not only to one part of it, so they all have to consent the dismemberment of territory, in other words, if Falkland Islanders, Gibraltarians, or Chagossians want to become their own legal political unit, then Argentines, Spanish, and Mauritians should also participate in such plebiscites, as actual democracy demands. I noticed as well that you have not actually defended your claim with sources or logic and, most importantly, you ignored the legal and moral arguments behind this, for example, the fact that allowing exclusive self-determination automatically to a population that is the result of an usurpation would establish extremely dangerous precedents for international law, because if you are in favor of doing so in these cases, then you are also in favor of doing so in Crimea, the West Bank, Tibet, the Sahrawi Republic, among other cases. That is not intelligent nor just at all. Besides, as all experts describe, there is an international obligation to respect the well-being and self-governance of distinct cultures within one state, so even though there is an international obligation to reintegrate the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, and Chagos to their legitimate states, they need to be reintegrated guaranteeing the well-being and self-governance of the corresponding populations.
@@sirsurnamethefirstofhisnam7986 By the way, the British government itself recognizes that paragraph 6 of United Nations General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) puts a territorial limit to the right of peoples to self-determination. During the Chagos case of 2019 it very clearly stated that:
_[paragraph 6] was aimed at securing the political objective of precluding demands for decolonization leading to the dismemberment of the territory of a sovereign State_
In other words, the United Kingdom understands very well the correct mechanism of the principle and recognizes it explicitly. It knows that the principle works together with territorial integrity and other principles, and that it cannot be used to dismember a state and much less to legitimize an invasion. The British government also claims that it does not have doubts about its alleged sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and thus, it claims that self-determination is applicable, but that is just a political statement to perpetuate an imperialist abuse: the entire academic community and almost the entire international community (all of Latin America, all of Africa, half of Asia-the only half that cares about the issue-, and almost all the European states that are not neutral) conclude and support the Argentine sovereignty over all these islands. The only states that support the United Kingdom are, of course, the Commonwealth realms (not all), France and Turkey, the last two involved in similar usurpations that benefit from a distorted understanding of the principle of self-determination, the one in Mayotte, which is part of the Comoros, and the other in Northern Cyprus, which is part of Cyprus.
So, there you have it, if you actually want to defend an exclusive right to self-determination for Falkland Islanders or Gibraltarians (or even for Hong Kongese), then you need to defend the supposed sovereignty of the United Kingdom over these territories first, as British Judge Rosalyn Higgins explains, even though no academic source concludes that those territories are British, but quite the contrary, they conclude that they are Argentina, Spanish, and Chinese respectively. Again, always guaranteeing that the well-being and self-governance of these populations is respected.
Thank you correctly articulating that Diego Garcia and the surrounding islands were uninhabited upon (Portuguese) discovery. Many other videos get this important point wrong.
Aren't most matters of international law dependent on signing up to an international treaty? It seems like decolonization was one area that is directly governed by general assembly resolutions. Is this true?
How are we to chime on about Putin's imperial ambitions and not give this land away? Especially with the ICC ruling.
We keep the base, what is the issue.
On Akrotiri etc, if Cyprus pipes up we should be making it worthwhile for them that we're there. That base has been absolutely integral for the past 50 years.
Also worth noting that following this development with the Chagos, Argentina have reaffirmed their commitment to claiming the Falkland’s stating they will take “concrete action”. No matter where you stand on this issue this is the inevitable place we end up. Give away one piece of territory someone else will come knocking wanting a slice. Cede an inch and they will take a mile.
try telling this to those shouting free Tibet, Palestine, kashmir or Hawaii
That is a classic problem with stealing stuff. Return to on and all seek return.
@@VTh-f5x stolen from who? The island was uninhabited before the British sent settlers
First of all, I would like to say that I definitely agree that the removal of the Chagossians was wrong. Having said that, the position of Mauritius is simply hypocritical. So, they gained independence, received a huge amount of money, and then decided it wasn’t enough and claimed victim status. “Oh, we were poor victims of colonization who obviously couldn’t decide for ourselves, so you have to give us islands that are 1000 km away just to appease us.” This is just shameful.
If you think their removal was wrong, was their placement there as slaves also wrong? If so, they aren't supposed to be there anyway.
Does that have any implications for Mayotte?
Mauritius launched a sophisticated legal challenge, the Comoros are not that good
Since the population of Mayotte voted for staying with France i do not see that it much compares
@@lucius1976
France organised a referendum on each island which is contrary to a UN resolution that said that only the overall results should count
As the overall results were in favour of independence, the whole colony should have become independent
France's sovereignty on Mayotte is thus not legally recognised by the international community
Ironically, France should have got rid of Mayotte which is peopled by poor Muslims, the island looks like a landfill
This is such a great explanation of the situation and how fantastic it is to see the Chagos islands being returned to its natives !! Kudos Dr James Ker-Lindsay for presenting such a sensitive topic in such an agreeable manner 👏👍👍
What's the relationship between Chagos Islands and Mauritius? I believe Al Jazeera has a video in which a Chagossian interviewee who had been deported to Mauritius said she didn't speak the local Mauritius languages.
There is none
Seems quite arbitrary regarding the date to when territorial integirty is rolled back. How is any territory or state defined other than by what i controls through power soft and hard? Why is having kept a small archipelago - which it is not clear that it belonged to Mauritius before European arrival - of such great importance, when Mauritius' Westerly neighbour Reunion is to this day entirely owned and controlled from Paris? 99% decolonisation is an outrage, 0% decolonisation is fine?
There is historical and cultural evidence that Chagos Archipelago ( Fehendheeb Atoll) and Diego Garcia Island (Foalhawahi) is a Maldivian territory.
They historically had visited it, they didn't settle. It's like saying the Falklands belongs to Fuegans.
I'm right wing myself but of the Libertarian persuasion and I'm also American so I don't understand why people are upset with this decision. I mean, if the important military base of Diego Garcia is still there why should they be upset about returning the other islands to the Chagos people?
The island was uninhabited when Europeans came. There were stories of fishermen stumbling onto the island previous to the Europeans, but it was so remote and had such few resources that nobody was present when Europeans first came. The “islanders” in Chagos were actually brought in from other islands far away as slaves by the French. When Britain defeated France in the war they took Chagos for themselves but the French slaves remained. But those people weren’t “native” to the island. Britain has as much right to claim the island as anybody.
I understand addressing the removal of Chagos peoples and their need for self determination. The six hundred mile distance across the Indian Ocean from Mauritius, was there something other than British colonial administration that would connect two?
Why is the emphasis on Starmer? It was James Cleverly under Rishi Sunak that got most of this done, and only because the British kept losing court battles over it. In fact, the deal has worked out all-round. Mauritius gets Chagos, USA gets to use the base - They seem happy with it. Starmer just signed it off - that's it. If he hadn't Mauritius would've dragged up through the courts again.
Some comments are crazy and irrational.
Look who owns the press media in the UK.
Hi Professor, do you think the UK ceding the Chagos islands could create a precedent for the UK to cede the sovereignty of its bases in Cyprus?
I live in Cyprus and can tell you that the UK may well cede Dekelhia back to Cyprus but the air base in Akrotiri is not going anywhere .
@@roddychristodoulou9111 UK could retain the base but with a lease agreement. I think that would be something mutually beneficial for both countries. The problem with the current status is that Cyprus has no jurisdiction over what happens in the basis and can't do anything to change the situation
I think the UK should start considering handing back those territories once the colonial power on the north of the island has withdrawn and the DMZ no longer needs to exist.
@@anglaismoyen why not before? what if turkey refuses to ever leave the island?
@@markdowding5737 For one, the occupation of half of the island is obviously a much more important matter to the Republic of Cyprus. If Turkey never leaves, the UK can continue with its peacekeeping mandate there with the happy side-effect of having an unsinkable aircraft carrier near the Middle East.
Can we please keep the tropical islands. I'm so tired of living on this cold wet island
Go and live in Indonesia with the digital nomads
If you had moved to chagos, they'd still be british. 😂
If de colonisation was so important...
Why is everyone trying to get into the UK to live, seems there is a disparity in reality.
Britain should have handed all the territory back except for Diego Garcia. DG should have not been part of any lease!
I'm British and the opportunistic politicians drowned out the real situation. Thank you for clarifying i feel more informed after this
Great video professor. With this move I am sure Britain will not be treated as a hypocritical imperialist power any more.
Oops, apologies, we should first abandon our bases in Cyprus. Only once actors in the Middle East any Asiacan attack us with impunity will we truly be accepted.
IRGC must be deterred at what a strong showing of soft power this represents
Anyway, back to the biannual UN meeting on the status on the Falklands.
Very disappointed that this is the framing you’ve chosen for this video. The people of Chagos were forcibly expelled from their homes in a textbook imperialist move. Why the hell should we be more concerned with the UKs ability to project their military power abroad than with the lives of these people who’ve been wronged so severely?
That is fair point and their story could have been included but it's a geopolitics angle on a geopolitics channel.... hence that's the narrative subscribers are wanting to know about.
Because nature abhors a vacuum.
UK/US out will mean China, Russia in.
"Very disappointed that this is the framing you’ve chosen for this video [...] Why the hell should we be more concerned with..."
What are you talking about? He didn't say you should be more concerned with that. He simply described the situation. He did also mention the expulsions.
Ridiculous. Self inflicted capitulation, totally unnecessary. Britain is a shadow of its former self. These islands were originally unpopulated and never part of Mauritius, just on paper administered from there during colonial times. Why give them up, what if Mauritius makes a deal and lets China establish a similar base close to Diego Garcia. India and the US can't let that happen. Irresponsible decision to open up such options.
As long as the Diego Garcia airbase stays indefinitely the main issue I for see is espionage.
If the airbase were to be used in a conflict I can imagine that civilians on the island could provide info to enemies of the US & UK like the Serbians did near Aviano Airbase in Italy during Operation Allied Force.
Yes. The base gets nullified because Chinese and Indian fishing companies will be operating from other islands.
@@VTh-f5x I don’t view India as a threat. And if China were the nation we were fighting in said conflict their fishing vessels would likely not be there or sunk. Seeing as so many commercial vessels in china are part of their maritime militia.
@@omarrp14 nothing can be done about Chinese fishing vessels because any adverse action will give china license to do the same with Western commercial shipping.
@@VTh-f5x these Chinese ships, if registered in their naval militia, will working like a paramilitary force. Meaning they could be targeted. Also if it’s a total war (with or without nukes) I think both sides would target each others commercial shipping.
We already plan a blockade on multiple check points, so commercial ships enroute to China would be stopped. And I don’t believe anything but a few Chinese ships/subs will be able to leave the 1st island chain
I don’t understand why the UK keeps the land to lease to the US. Why not just lease it directly to the US. Why does the UK need to be a middle man.
Take care of your island first brits, you are becoming a third world country
@11:29 Whoa! The professor's tone of voice changed from neutral to aggressive after mentioning that it's the Conservative Party that started this mess.
Yes, it did. Because they were completely and utterly dishonest about this issue. (By the way, for the avoidance of any doubt, I’m not a Labour voter.)
@@JamesKerLindsay Are you a Liberal Democrat voter then?
Given that USA has been able to deal with Cuba since 1903 regarding the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, they should be able to make a deal with the Republic of Mauritius regarding the Diego Garcia base.
Never should the Mauritius do this. The USA stole that area for more than a century after one agreement
Does it deal with Cuba? As far as I know, it sends off a pittance of a check, given that the initial amount was modest and there is no inflation adjustment, each year that the Communist government doesn't cash. It stays within the bounds of what it considers the treaty to be. So far, Cuba hasn't done anything with respect to Guantanamo Bay that has triggered American reaction. But Cuba still considers the base to be an illegal colonial possession.
They already did.
"Given that USA has been able to deal with Cuba since 1903 regarding the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base"
What do you mean by "deal" here? Cuba says the US presence in Guantanamo Bay is illegitimate and wants it back but the US simply refuses. In what way does that imply that they would be able to strike a deal with someone else? (Note, I'm not making any claims here about whether the lease of Guantanamo Bay by the US is legitimate or not.)
@@seneca983 The US liberated Cuba from Spain, of course, Guantanamo Bay is legitimate. Yes hopefully the US will not allow this strategic asset to fall into Chinese hands. The Brits are so dumb to do this.
Good video Prof! Apart from your title, a British Betrayal? - of whom? Sounds rather like Daniel Hannan in the Lords speaking of a shameful surrender by the British. The fact is this was one of the most shameful episodes in British history amounting to a crime against humanity in the way these indigenous people were uprooted from their homeland. And it was the work of the British Labour government - what a disgrace! British administrators referred to the Chagossians as " Man Fridays of dubious origins". And now we have the Tories bleating about surrender and betrayal. British imperialist and colonialist attitudes are still alive and well in certain quarters. Full credit to you Prof for exploring the issue head on.
What indigenous people? There were and are no natives on to the island before Europeans.
@@ObieOnce I take your point Obie but it should be noted that the Chagos islanders were officially recognized as an indigenous people by the UN - among other agencies. Leaving the semantic question aside, these people were forcably removed from their homeland by the Brits, after gassing their dogs as a veiled threat of what might happen to them if they resisted. The British colonialists really were merciless, an approach adopted by the successor hegemon, the Americans.
Even if its legally different than say Falklands, people won't see it that way.Demands to hand over other territories will get more intense now.
The Falklanders regard themselves as British. They were glad when the invading Argentinians were forced back out.
It will be hilarious if Britain leaves the Falklands in order to "de-colonize", and Argentina instantly re-colonizes it. What heroes...
The same words in English like sovereignty and self determination mean different things depending on what time of the day the British Politicians mention them
Just quickly; how is this decision on these islands different to what is happening on the Falkland Islands or Gibraltar? Have you already addressed this in another there video?
@nrs8043 The UK took possession of the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar long before it became a UN Member; neither Argentina nor Spain were British colonies; and both the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar have a settled population very much in favour of remaining part of the UK. Meanwhile, the settled population of the Chagos Islands was forcibly expelled by the British government.
The legal point discussed was not whether Britain took possession of Mauritius and the Chagos Islands lawfully. It was whether once it was in possession of the territories it had the right to separate the Chagos Islands from Mauritius. The ICJ said it didn’t. There are no such issues at play with the Falklands or Gibraltar.
From the pocket of the public to the politicians and their backers' pockets. Politicians give it to the one they have inyerest in, just like the land deals to the natives in British Columbia, Canada.
Yes, sadly, it has and for the western world as a whole.
This sets a precedent for returning other territories; Gibraltar to Spain, Falklands to Argentina, Northern Ireland to Ireland, British bases to Cyprus. Maybe for some, it was mistake but for others, maybe Britain should just settle into quiet retirement, just become a normal European country. Time to go back to the EU?
One thing is for certain, the Island of Singapore should go back to Johor’s control, Chinese control is an aberration in the region
Ah ha. You’ll be wanting to watch this then: th-cam.com/video/8PJ9JTod9X0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=Bjht9IPhkYiLiNRf
Please correct me if im wrong - places in the UN list of colonies and Non self governing territories mean ppl there got to vote which way they go
Chagos lslands was taken off that list
And ppl there werent happy about not being asked
Sth that sounded all to familiar
The piece does not cover the descendants of the original Chagosian inhabitants who originally inhabited the island. UK based diaspora Chagossians get no say on the island. Only Marutius CHagossians get a "say" under the guidance and influence of Maruitious government power.
The question remains unanswered by this video. Mauritius gets rights from being a (emphasis on colonially designated) political unit historically with the Chagos islands. Descendants of the original Chagossians can claim ownership of the land as per the principle of blood soil. Correct? Ergo Chagossians and only Chagosians get to decide the future of the islands.
What happened instead is this "UK of 1800 and 1903 political calculus decision" gets superimposed onto modern day value by way of "decolonization."
Lets adhere to the principle of blood soil. The descendants of the original inhabitants get the only say by way of referendum.
You raise a great point. Britain doesn’t get to keep control over the Chagos Islands because it split them off from from Mauritius, but Mauritius does get to keep the islands because Britain added them to it.
A thief returning back a property he robbed.
Robbed from who? Seagulls? No one lived there.
Could this exact same argument be used for Ireland???
Forced to give up 6 counties for independence.
The comment is valid. I think the stumbling block is that the separation of Northern Ireland from Ireland happened when there was no UN. However, the predecessor organization, the League of Nations, already existed in 1921. I don't know if this can help :)
Perhaps it was a colonial relationship if you go way back in history ( Fred. Engels described it so), but of course the Gaels themselves were colonizers. At the time of independence, Ireland was an integral part of the UK of GB and Ireland with the same constitutional rights.
Thank you for this in depth perspective. So many different angles to this story.
Is China giving up Tibet or the Xinjiang provinces? Or Inner Mongolia? The Chinese nationalist movement colonised Formosa.
Does the UN demand these be returned?
Britain is no where near as powerful as China.
China will not give up Tibet and Xinjiang. The status of these areas does not even affect the UN. It cannot be compared to the Chagos Islands topic. The historical and legal background is different. If you want to draw a parallel, then Scotland and the United Kingdom, Hawaii and the USA, Tuva and Russia, Sikkim and India can be brought up. These are more similar to the topic you raised. But even for these, the UN and international court do not ask the United Kingdom, USA, Russia, India to give up these areas.
You really did downplay Liz Truss' role in all of this.
We must always blame Labour for stuff the Tories do. Always.
Yes that’s the rule 😊
Time for France to give up New Caledonia 🇳🇨
Sri Lanka has already offered Hambantota port to China for 99 years. Maldives will cut a similar deal soon. It is of utmost importance that the base in Diego Garcia is not given up.
My defence requires that I keep your land because of what China, Maldives and Sri lanka are doing, sounds exactly like the guy who invades another country for the purposes of its security and to prevent land owner from joining a defence pact called NATO.
That's up to the owners to decide, not the UK
Former imperial powers seem to react viscerally when they lose the remnants of that status. It's not really about the specifics of the islands.
Yup. Just see the seethe when a generic diplomatic negotiation over the Falklands is suggested. Even worse with Scottish independence and Irish reunification
@@User-he6zd It's not just the UK. Russia and Turkey both feel aggrieved at their loss of empire. After a lot of reflection I believe what is called the "international system" is really the American system for reeling in these imperial powers. The 5 Permanent Members of the UNSC are the USA + 4 former imperial powers.
Trivia compared to the military base.
It's about the loss of power more than the territory itself. The english are more livid because they had to concede to the lobbying of African Union and India.
Interesting, thanks! Who do you think will support Turkey and Northern Cyprus more: the UK or the Republic of Cyprus? I mean, if the Republic of Cyprus demands that the UK return the territories to them, what would be Northern Cyprus's position? And would Turkey's stance be any more nuanced?
Britain signed Treaties with the Republic of Cyprus alone, concerning the bases, and not to Turkey's puppet regime. There is a clause in the Treaty that if Britain will abandon the Bases, they can only transfer them to the Republic of Cyprus
@@VladTevezif you're relying on Britain to keep their promise and honour their word then you're royally screwed!!
Personally if Britain withdrew the "sovereignty " designation, meaning the SBA is regarded as cypriot territory and a small territorial border changes were made then I'd welcome the uk staying in cyprus for the greater good of all.
Britain is no longer in the eu nor is cyprus in nato but many don't realise that over the decades how common interests have in many ways merged.
True Britain slipped cyprus a poison chalice but that can be overcomed and resolved.
Whilst we are at it let's not forget british presence in cyprus goes back to near a thousand years.
Sir, how is chagos island which is almost 10 thousand km away from britain is necessary for Britain's defence? Is the sole importance of that island was to stay relevant in Indo-pacific or just a natural fear of loosing remaining territory is making people angst?
You clearly have zero idea how defense works, we have a large naval presence there and yes, it is vital.