Surrender of diego garcia

ANOTHER NAIL IN THE WESTERN COFFIN – THE DIEGO GARCIA SELLOUT

The British Indian Ocean Territory comprises over 1,000 islands in the center of the Indian Ocean and has been controlled by the UK since 1810 when it was seized from the French. Prior to French-led settlement, the islands were uninhabited. Again prior to the French settlement and when the Spanish/Portugese explorers first noted the islands, the islands were uninhabited. The territory has hosted a strategic military base since the 1960s and constitutes one of the largest marine protected areas in the world. But on 3 October 2024, London ceded sovereignty over the islands to Mauritius. The move demonstrates worrying strategic ineptitude in a world that the UK government describes as being characterised by great power competition.

Those defending the UK’s surrender of sovereignty would make three observations in defense of the deal. They would argue that after a UN General Assembly vote pushing for the UK to cede control, followed by an advisory ruling from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to the same effect, the UK risked a binding ruling being passed against it. If forced to cede the territory under these conditions – they argue – the UK would suffer a greater blow to its soft power than if it conceded graciously, and might struggle to retain control over the military base. Instead, the deal that was struck leaves the UK with rights to the base for 99 years. Defenders of the deal would therefore also argue that the government preserved its strategic interests while resolving a diplomatic dispute that was causing friction with countries across the Global South. Really. So Chinese expansion is OK, the nation mind you which at a minimum slaughtered 75,000,000 of it’s own people possibly higher, under the brutal Maoist Communist regime are a welcome sight in the southern hemisphere, really? Second, the 99 yr lease has about as much chance of surviving as Mao’s victims of the great leap forward did. The PRC will inundate the islands with their naval forces whether the joint US/British military base is still occupied or not. NOTHING WILL STOP THEM.

Mauritius orchestrated an effective campaign to have various countries vote against the UK’s sovereign control of the territory does not alter the fact that Mauritians have never controlled it themselves. The French and British administered Mauritius and the Chagos Archipelago as one territory under their respective colonial administrations. This is the basis of the ICJ advisory opinion that they should be returned to Mauritius, but this would if anything affirm rather than nullify an artefact of colonialism.

French plantations had been established on the Chagos Archipelago in the 18th century. The great irony, however, is that while the UK evicted the Chagossians in the years following 1967, the deal struck with Mauritius does nothing to address the forced displacement of this population. The Chagossians are not indigenous inhabitants of the BIOT but were originally brought as slave labor and later free laborers operating the Copra plantation. What Mauritius has done is successful lawfare; creating a diplomatic problem to try to gain control over economically valuable territory that it wants to exploit.

An important aspect of this lawfare campaign is that the coalition supporting Mauritius was not cohered by strong interests in the cause but because a number of countries hostile to the UK, including but not limited to Russia, carried out significant diplomatic legwork to ensure Mauritius had support. Russia saw this issue as a way of imposing costs on the UK, and it succeeded.

These factors are important because the belief that this has drawn a line under the issue is wrong. Firstly, while the UK could have simply continued to assert its sovereignty, it has now created a legal precedent that will be used by other states to try to make predatory claims on British territory elsewhere. And countering such lawfare will – by virtue of the precedent set – be more difficult. Secondly, precisely because the coordination against the UK was carried out by competitors trying to impose costs on the UK, they are not going to stop pushing in this direction now that the UK has ceded sovereignty. They will simply move on to the next issue. The Chinese PRC in particular are salivating at the ability to access this vital strategic asset. Knuckling under to the United Nations Chinese shills displays the ongoing weakness and despicable self-loathing western leftist governments have for their own nations and civilization.

5 Likes

A book * Colonialisation, a moral reckoning, a book by Nigel Biggar gives a different slant to some of the woke thinking around.

2 Likes

I wonder if the UK government will make the same argument for restoring Palestine to its pre British control residents.

1 Like

The UK government has no say about anything there anymore.

If they did, they might justify America reverting to ‘pre British control residents’.

2 Likes

Some background.

1 Like

From which century
Thats like returning Cyprus

1 Like

Returned to the Roman Empire of course.

that was just one era

This was a non event on the island. Nothing will change on DG. This agreement will probably just make it easier for the UK to deal with the migrants on DG.

2 Likes

Migrants? What migrants are on DG? You mean the TCN’s? Or the “fisherman” that show up from time to time in their dhows?

There is a 99 year lease in place so that essentially nothing changes on the island. It’s the same as Gitmo. If anything it releases any culpability for the UK as far as what sort of nefarious activity (if any) goes on there and they can fully blame the US and/or Mauritius. All that really changes is who gets paid, which i guess it’s now Mauritius to some degree.

Olds yelling at clouds again.

2 Likes

I hope China’s next move will be directed toward territories russia stole from them in 17th century.

Gitmo is a “lease” in perpetuity as long as we continue to use it. It was granted by Spain to settle the Spanish-American War.

We lost the other Cuban ports granted by Spain because we very foolishly abandoned them to save a few short term pennies.

DG is a 99 year lease. Which means that we lose it in 99 years, or will have to bid against the Chinese, Iran, or whoever to renew it.

If the UK government was not a bunch of woke simps, they would have simply said: It’s long held British Territory that we acquired in keeping with the laws and customs in effect at that time. Period.

If the US had an effective government, it would have simply bought DG from the UK for a few $ Billion, and said it’s ours, it you want it, you can negotiate to buy it, or you can try to take it.

4 Likes

The Brits technically lose it in 99 years, but yes.

The UK agreed to a ruling made by an international organization that they recognize via their own law. How does that make them woke simps? Following the law is now woke? Interesting.

Also, laws and customs of that time do not just carry on forever. See slavery, human sacrifice, and women’s suffrage for further examples of things that were formerly customary of different time periods.

Yes of course, international land acquisition is such a simple process. It’s why it was so easy for Trump to purchase Greenland!

4 Likes

DG and its associated UNINHABITED islands where claimed “right of discovery.” They were not taken from anyone by conquest (As the French, British, Spanish and Russians took North America by conquest.

At the time that Britain acquired DG, other countries a few hundred miles away did not even know that DG existed.

Britain is not “giving back” a former Colony. It’s giving it to someone with no history with it or valid claim on it.

Under these circumstances, Britain should not recognized the claim that was engineered by the Russians and Chinese, nor should it recognize that anti-Western kangaroo court.

3 Likes

The valid claim was proven in court and the someone with no history are the people who were brought there as slaves, had families there, knew no other place than there, and were then forcibly removed.

At that time Mauritius was a British Colony so that’s not true. As was India including the Maldives. And the Seychelles were French, to whom DG previously was colonized by before it was ceded to the British via treaty.

You seem very upset that the British have removed themselves (not really) from this and I don’t understand why? Nothing is changing? They’re just going to pay Mauritius to have a lease and keep the US base there. It’s their land, they can do what they want with it, right? They decided to give the islands to a former colony that has claimed sovereignty over them for years because they were once administered from the same place (Mauritius).

1 Like

When this same kangaroo court orders the USA, Canada and Mexico to give North America back to the descendants of the indigenous peoples that our forebearers took it from by conquest, where are you planning to go?

I just don’t think that people living today, you and me, should be held responsible for what the British, French, and Spaniards did 200-600 years ago to people who are long dead.

I do not believe that any colonial land taken by conquest (the law and custom of the day) should be given back.

I do not believe that we, you and I, should have to pay any reparations to the drug and welfare addicted great (to the nth power) grandchildren of the original indigenous peoples, or to the descendants of peoples who were enslaved by other African tribes and then sold to the British, Dutch, Spanish, French, or whomever, 200-600 years ago.

That is not just. No court order attempting to compel that deserves to be respected.

4 Likes

The USA is not a signatory to the ICJ so they wouldn’t do that.

The British removed the local population in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Idk you but based on the stories you tell I’d take a gander that you were alive.

Painting with a broad brush there, but I didn’t bring up reparations or anything of the sort so idk why you threw that in there.

You’re really upset at the idea that another country decided to do something with their own territory they felt was just.

4 Likes

Why’d you have to confuse the situation with facts instead of feelings?

2 Likes

The brits did remove the population and they were dumped in Mauritius where they sit today.

The gov spent years saying they were tranisents till they dug up some graves and I think showed they have been there for 300 years or so.

1 Like