Chagos Islands going back to Mauritius

I think you're reading too much into the UN huffing and puffing. A non-binding resolution is just a way of for the UN to say we don't like what you are doing, but we have zero power to stop you doing it. The UK isn't about to hand over a militarily important piece of land, and the US is not going to support transferring the islands away from a close ally, so nothing will change.
 
DrBombcrater said:
I think you're reading too much into the UN huffing and puffing. A non-binding resolution is just a way of for the UN to say we don't like what you are doing, but we have zero power to stop you doing it. The UK isn't about to hand over a militarily important piece of land, and the US is not going to support transferring the islands away from a close ally, so nothing will change.
Click to expand...

Maybe. But this has been building for sometime. They lost a previous vote a couple of years ago trying to stop it reaching the International Court of Justice. Now having lost this they're trying to argue that the ICJ doesn't have the authority to try a case against the UK unless the UK agrees to it. The Times seems to think it's significant. I admit I'm not an expert so I'm going off them. The fact that Mauritius is talking about letting the US keep their airbase there might make it more possible.

Either way, it does not rightfully belong to us.
 
h4rm0ny said:
We've basically been occupying it on behalf of America so they can fly bombing raids from it rather than having to keep a carrier group supplied and in range.
Click to expand...

You can't realistically run B-52s (which have had their lifespan extended) and the likes from a carrier anyhow so they'd need a fixed installation somewhere in that region for the level of global coverage. So I can't see the US giving up the base any time soon.
 
Bear said:
Didn’t they buy it off the Mauritians, so if that is the case then yes it does. The only argument is that they evicted all the residents after the UK took it over
Click to expand...

For £3m. Even allowing for inflation, that's a pretty extraordinary bargain. But Mauritius was a British colony at the time, without independence. Nor is it necessarily legitimate for the government to accept some money and drive out people from their ancestral lands in any case.
The sequence is UK takes over Mauritius from the French after France's military defeat. UK rules the islands. UK sees writing on the wall that there's going to be independence. Gives some money to the government which it itself controls as a pre-emptive move against Mauritian independence (which happens three years later). The people who live on those islands throughout all of this, get rounded up and shipped off to various places against their will.

There's no moral case for our owning the islands, the barest fig-leaf of a legal case for it. The reality is that it's a great place for the Americans to park an airforce in the Indian ocean where they have nowhere else to use.
 
Rroff said:
You can't realistically run B-52s (which have had their lifespan extended) and the likes from a carrier anyhow so they'd need a fixed installation somewhere in that region for the level of global coverage. So I can't see the US giving up the base any time soon.
Click to expand...

True. I'm not sure what the range is of a B-52 but I've no doubt the base is necessary for their air-force. Which is what it comes down to: Current American military goals require the island. And some people get paid to make a few legal rationalisations and go through the motions of pretending there's a legitimate case for ownership because it's less political fall out than acknowledging the reality which is that the Americans have all the guns and say 'it's ours'.

Also, re: B-52s. It makes me chuckle. I'd say "they don't build them like that anymore," but the Americans do. ;)
 
Whatever, it’ll be under the ocean in a couple decades anyway and the fish stock completely depleted.

It’s value was increasingly limited.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom