Although the Chagos Islands might not be one of the best known disputes in international politics, it is incredibly important for a number of reasons. It touches on decolonisation and human rights, as well as on key questions of international security - including the future of a strategically significant military base in the middle of the Indian Ocean. It also involves serious questions about international law and the authority of the UN General Assembly and the International Court of Justice. Thanks for watching. If you found this video useful, please do consider giving it a 'Like' and sharing it with others who might be interested. And do all consider subscribing. It helps the channel to grow! Much appreciated!
James, you might want to review this new book: Boxing Pandora: Rethinking Borders, States, and Secession in a Democratic World by Timothy William Waters
U r somewhat ryt. But we r forgetting one thing. What do real inhabitants want? The chagossians? They dont share ancestral link with majority mauritians who r of Indian origin. Morever, chagos is having rich environment. Mostly farming and fishing will be done. Maldives is near to chagos (500 km) than Mauritius which is far off (2000km). So they can do better trade with maldives. Morever geographically, chagos is part of laccadive-Maldives-chagos archipelago nd ridge. So in that way too Mauritius cant claim a piece of land which falls in other continent. Chagos is not a part of africa. Chagossians should be allowed to return to their island and ask them what they want??? Do they want to give away their uk citizenship over Mauritius citizenship nd be under Indo-mauritians. Or be like renioun island/Puerto rico nd live better lives,bcoz just few years back many chagossians are leaving Mauritius nd coming to uk for educating their children.
@@RedStateSecession You can leave red state. Just realize that you take your proportion of debt and you don't get the USD. The red states are net receivers of subsidies from "blue" states. Good luck with that!
Thanks! So true. Many people will indeed have heard of Diego Garcia. It is one of those places that pops up in news reports from time-to-time. However, as you say, it’s likely that they don’t know about the wider dispute surrounding the base. It is also telling how much support Mauritius enjoys at the UN over this.
Thank you so much for this video! ☺️ I have my International Law exam tomorrow, and this dispute was included among the relevant cases on the right to self-determination of people. The whole case was quite obscure to me, but with your explanation everything now makes sense, and I definitely agree when you say that this case is actually far more important than many may realize, very interesting how UK is claiming its rights over the Chagos Islands as a strategic base to fight international terrorism and organized crime.. Could use this case as a reference in my dissertation on the fight against drug trafficking in the Middle East!
Hi Alice, thank you so much for the lovely message. It was really kind of you to let me know - especially in the midst of revision! I am so glad it helped. Very best of luck with the exam tomorrow!
Thank you for this clear insight. You mention that under the Treaty of Paris Britain decided to retain sovereignty over Mauritius, Chagos Archipelagos and Seychelles. There's also Rodrigues Island and Agalega and Saint Brandon. These islands are now integral part of the Republic of Mauritius (though considered as second class citizen, but this is another issue). And I am from Rodrigues Island. So this is of particular interest to me not only because I am studying law but because of our non-participation as Rodriguan in the independence discussions between Mauritius and Britain. 95% of Rodriguans were against the annexation to Mauritius but we had no representatives in the National Assembly to voice out this then (people of Rodrigues did not have voting rights) and I wonder how this would have turned out if we had one.
Thanks so much. That’s a fascinating element that I didn’t know about. It is amazing that this whole issue is still continuing. It has been a real embarrassment to the U.K. Obviously, there’s a strong political dimension to it too, but it has shown how Britain’s standing has dropped in recent years.
First video I’ve watched on this channel, very impressed with your clear and concise presentation of facts without your personal opinion thrown in. In addition, great questions to leave with at the end of the video.
Thank you so much! I’m delighted you have found the channel. I do sometime slip in some personal thoughts, but on the whole I try to keep my videos factually focused with an emphasis on analysis.
On the surface, there appears to be a correlation between the UK and the US loosing international influence and this hearing. Also, I have to agree with you when you said that the UK ignoring this decision would undermine the government's efforts to play a larger role in international affairs post-Brexit. These decisions are advisory, yes, but sometimes disregarding advice isn't a good idea. It's a shame that not a lot of people know about the Chagos Archipelago sovereignty dispute. It's also a shame that the inhabitants were forcibly removed from their homeland against their will. I understand why, but that is a serious human rights issue.
Thanks. Completely agree. The UK would argue that it is all about politics. Yes, it is. But in the past it could at least work on its EU partners to lend some support. That’s now gone and there is a large part of the world eagerly lining up to put the boot in. It is a huge problem for UK diplomacy - and one I suspect will get worse.
@@JamesKerLindsay UN Has always been useless. I don't think they will ever leave Diego Garcia because the people who used to live their were not indigenous people bu descendants of slaves brought by the french so it doesn't make sense
Thank you for the video! Very well explained and indeed an interesting ICJ Advisory Opinion. Here’s hoping on a good grade on my public international law exam! 😁👍🏼
James can talk about the cabinda conflict . The province of cabinda have a succession group , but the succession failed . I think this conflict is a topic should be more talked about. The reason why they cannot succeed or gain autonomy because of alot of oil found in the province
Thanks a lot for the great suggestion! I actually have it marked down on my - rather long and growing - list. :-) I’ll certainly try to do one on it. In the meantime, I hope you are well.
Absolutely great video! And one could only imagine what the full effects of the implications that you've mentioned will be? But the vote being this way and all during post-Brexit... Regardless I do feel it's unfortunate for the people who were removed, but the strategic importance of Diego Garcia seems pretty self-evident that a great power is going to be occupying that base for decades to come. I do think there is something to great powers holding or creating islands for power projection (and by that notion what that does mean for the autonomy of many Pacific islands).
Thanks so much. I really appreciate it! It is a really fascinating dispute because it touches on so many different issues. And yet it is so little known. It also attracts very little interest. (Interestingly, the number of views on this video is *significantly* lower than on my other videos! Curiously, there’s almost no comments from Chagos Islanders or Mauritians. Usually, there is some chatter from countries I cover.) But you are also really right to note that it is a complex issue inasmuch as there is no doubt that the strategic location is vital for the UK and US and that Diego Garcia plays an important role in their defence and security. But then one also has to ask whether they could work out a deal with Mauritius?
Hmm... Thanks for making this... Yeah I apologize for my previous comment on the Crimea video. I am impressed that you call it out even if it is about your country. I think it's interesting why Britain and the US want to hold onto those islands. I assume that it's because it's strategically located. This was a good video James. Is there anyway Mauritius can try to reclaim them?
Thanks! I told you. The channel is about interested in international law and politics and so I am happy to point out inconsistencies and wrongdoing by Western countries as much as by any other countries. In any case, you can atone for your previous comments by subscribing! :-) As for Mauritius, there isn't really much more it can do. It has an ICJ Advisory Opinion in its favour as well as UN General Assembly resolutions. It can't get a Security Council resolution for the obvious reason of the UK's veto. And any military action is not going to succeed. The best it can hope to do is continue to keep up the pressure and hope that at some point things will change.
@@JamesKerLindsay Here is a recent development on the issue, a 28 January judgment by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/press_releases_english/PR_313_EN.pdf According to an analyst, "the Chamber’s judgment is yet another important nail in the coffin for the UK’s claims to overseas territory and a victory in the fight for decolonisation". www.ejiltalk.org/the-curious-case-of-the-legal-effect-of-icj-advisory-opinions-in-the-mauritius-maldives-maritime-boundary-dispute/ Well, that coffin remains to be seen...
Hi Omar, Yes. It’s amazing how little known this dispute is - especially given the issues involved and that it has even been taken up by the UN General Assembly and the International Court of Justice.
Yes, when looked at on the map they do seem very far away indeed. However, it seems that they aren’t viable as an independent state in their own right, and, interestingly, Mauritius’s ultimate claim over them seems universally accepted - even by the islands’ other neighbours (the Seychelles and Maldives) and by the United Kingdom, which, as I note, has accepted that they will be returned to Mauritius when it no longer needs them.
@parveshramjutton7568 As he explains in the video, the United Kingdom's claim comes down to a very old-fashioned Terra Nullius. There has only ever been one modern state in control of the area and that is the UK. The question of the legitimacy of that claim hinges on the other questions which the professor expounds on.
You forgot to mention that the UK is, as of November 23 2022, attributing British citizenship to the descendants of the Chagossians (that will be arounds 35000 persons living in Mauritius and the Seychelles).
Britain is also more democratic than Russia,therefore being more open-minded. Russia is ruled by a former Soviet union spy who still has some ideals of the Soviet union whilst Britain is ruled by a monarchy and parliament. The parliament is currently under pressure with a scandal. Putin also has less restrictions as Britain's government relies on the monarchy and vice versa for inducing legislation and such.
@@youvrajessurredeen496 I was born and raised in the UK and I'm of Russian origin. The police raided our house when I was 9 for no reason. I have yet to have my house raided or police pointing guns at me in Ukraine (where my mother is from) or in Russia. I suppose you've never been to the UK, I'd like to share my opinion of someone who was born and raised there.
@@MuzzaHukka Democracy is glorified in the West, much of the time it involves electing governments with low turnouts, who use power to oppress minorities. The majority are fine with that. I was born and raised here too.
Mauritius never owned the islands it was only grouped up in a federation administrated from there and britain brought the islands. Yes return the islanders but the archipelago is owned by britain, the government paid millions in reparations to Mauritius to give to the islanders but they kept it
Thanks. But the ICJ considered all the evidence and decided Britain is in the wrong. By the way, almost all colonial boundaries are artificial. That’s why the principle of respecting those borders - as manufactured as they may be - is so important.
@@JamesKerLindsay Britain never even really tried to defend itself... So why would an imported work force and a country gain legit claims over land becuase the old ''mother country'' once put them in a artificial boarder? Yet the old ''mother country'' who owned it before the colony lose its older and more legitimate claim The ICJ is built of west loathing nations by now they even try to say Britain needs to resume sovereignty talks of the Falkland islands with Argentina. As much as i respect this well put together video i will say Mauritius has 0 claim to the islands, the deported people i would have them returned or all given UK citizenship their treatment has been disgraceful from basically all parties. Britain owned the islands before the two other claimants and we dont need waste our time in the western loathing icj at this point .
The arrogance of the english is incredible, forceful ejection of the indigenous people’s in the 1960’s from the Island. The UN has thankfully came to the right decision and called this occupation illegal. Give the islands back.
The UN is good at giving away places that don't belong to them. It's Global Security that's at stake here.lF Britain/US leaves a power vacuum, the Chinese will fill it. They're the Colonial Expansioners.
Hi, James! I love your videos, they are so organized and easy to understand, keep it up! I also have a doubt that maybe you could help me with. You see, Mauritius is clearly sovereign over the Chagos Archipelago and the International Court of Justice has been very clear about it, but why doesn't the General Assembly include it in its list of territories subject to the process of decolonization? I was wondering the same about other territories like Mayotte, annexed by France from Comoros and, if we deeply think about it, why isn't Crimea or other territories under foreign occupation not listed there as well? I mean, the Falkland-Malvinas Islands and Gibraltar, both violations of territorial integrity, are listed and other territories that did not even have a population were listed, like the Fort of São João Baptista de Ajudá. If territories are sometimes listed because they constitute violations of territorial integrity, then why are so many left out, what is the difference, if any? I have been reading about it, but I couldn't get the answer to that question. Of course that I have many hypothesis, but I ultimately do not know the reason. Thank you a lot!
Thank you so much. That is an excellent question. I must look into it. I can understand why territories like Crimea, which are essentially occupations, are not included. But not including other areas, such as BIOT, doesn’t on the fact of it make a lot of sense. By the way, technically, Gibraltar is not a territorial violation. It is the product of a Treaty. (I must do a video on this.) And the Falklands is also an interesting case. Argentina has a land claim. But the people living there want to be British. (Another case to explore.)
@@JamesKerLindsay Yes, I assumed that one of the criteria to include a territory in the decolonization list was that the foreign occupation had originated in a colonial context and not just in any context, such as the case of Crimea, but the thing is that I don't actually know what constitutes a colonial context. I understand that the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands, Gibraltar and Hong Kong presented populations under a colonial regime, this is, they were non-self-governing territories lacking self-determination, and thus they were listed because there existed a colonial context, but in the case of the Fort of São João Baptista de Ajudá there was no population. In my opinion, and this is just a hypothesis of mine, so it may be completely erred, the General Assembly listed the Fort of São João Baptista de Ajudá because, even though the "population" there was of about fifteen people at most (one governor, one assistant and their families - five people at the time of the annexation by Benin), I guess that the criteria to be included on the list is that there exists a population of any kind living under a colonial regime, no matter how small that population is. Today the least populated non-self-governing territory is the Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands with about fifty people, so I think it is reasonable to suppose that that was the logic of the General Assembly when including the Fort of São João Baptista de Ajudá on the list, and I guess that territories like the Chagos Archipelago, Mayotte and others are not listed because they constitute mere violations of territorial integrity with no colonial regime to speak of (I know that Chagossians want to return to their home and I support them in that obviously, but the point is that they are not currently living there under a colonial regime and thus the General Assembly won't list the territory as it lacks a colonial context). I've also read about the "colonial enclaves" doctrine, but I really don't buy it at all, it is simply illogical to me.
@@JamesKerLindsay As for the case of Gibraltar, I think it is a violation of territorial integrity. The Peace of Utrecht of 1713 did not cede the territory to Britain, it just ceded the settlement expressly without any territorial jurisdiction, without mentioning the right to recover the settlement if Britain ever wished to alienate it in any way. Britain annexed the territory as a British colony in 1830, violating the Spanish territorial integrity. UNGA resolution 2353 (XXII) is equally clear that self-determination is not the way to end this colonial situation and that the Spanish territorial integrity must be respected. As for the case of the Falkland-Malvinas Islands, I have read many professors of international law and legal historians that have studied the question of sovereignty, including Rudolf Dolzer, Julius Goebel, Marcelo Kohen, among others, and they happen to agree every time that the islands are indeed Argentine territory under illegal British administration. The formula these authors present is essentially the same: the islands were first French through effective occupation, then ceded to Spain and then Argentine after its emancipation and subsequent administration and occupation of the islands. The British presence in the islands has always been illegal, whether in 1766 when they established a clandestine settlement in French territory, when usurped the territory in 1833, or today. As a result of this breach of international law, the right of peoples to self-determination is not applicable to this case. Every resolution that contributed to the development of the right of peoples to self-determination is very careful not to allow violations of territorial integrity and the International Court of Justice accordingly recognizes that the principle is applicable to all non-self-governing territories as long as the population constitutes a self-determination unit, which does not in this case. As British Judge Rosalyn Higgins, former president of the ICJ, said if the territory is Argentine, then the population has no exclusive right to self-determination, their self-determination is one and the same with that of the Argentines, because the islands are an integral part of Argentina. No General Assembly resolution has ever considered them a self-determination unit and when Britain attempted to include the right in a resolution, it was rejected outright. As long as the human rights of the population of the territory, including their autonomy, is respected, then they cannot serve as judges in a territorial dispute of this nature where usurpation is present, they cannot deprive Argentines of their territorial rights. Negotiations that take into account the Argentine territorial integrity and the interests of the population of the islands may lead to the creation of an autonomous province within Argentina, a British-Argentine condominium, or other outcomes, but one thing is clear: Argentines have the right to claim and regain what corresponds to them in law.
@@JamesKerLindsay Indeed please also look into Midway Atoll (perhaps @Atoll King knows something?) and why it's not also slated for decolonization, being that the U.S. admits it was claimed by the Hawaiian Kingdom on July 5, 1859, yet denies having formally annexed it and being that it was not claimed under the Guano Islands Act (which cannot form the basis of a permanent territorial claim in any event). And if indeed an occupation by the U.S. since August 28, 1867 as history suggests, then what is the purpose of the continued occupation and unnecessary expenditure of U.S. tax dollars? The U.S. seems to use a similar strategy of weaponizing conservation as a means of preventing the Hawaiian People from exercising their state sovereignty AND inherent sovereignty over their ancestral homelands on 'unincorporated' Midway Atoll. This makes the 1993 Apology Resolution (U.S. Pub. Law. 103-150) seem particularly disingenuous.
@@atollking201 I respectfully submit that the right to self-determination belongs to all Peoples, it is not a prerogative of the States to grant or deny. Article 1 of the ICCPR and ICESCR commit all State parties to implement it. Paragraph 80 of the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ on Kosovo stipulates that the principle of territorial integrity is for external use, and cannot deny the jus cogens right of self-determination. The scope of the principle of territorial integrity is confined to the sphere of relations between States and does not infringe on the right of ALL Peoples to self-determination. To say that some Peoples have rights that others don't is clearly unequal and I imagine that is why some prefer to engage in war rather than argue.
Brilliant! So glad to hear it was useful. I hope some of the other videos are too. And if you know anyone else who might like the channel, please do let them know as well. Many thanks!
Thanks James for a very thorough content on the Chagos Islands dispute. As usual your videos are very informative & states facts rather than rumours. I'd like to know, legally what course of action could Mauritius take to get back their land. Since ICJ ruling & UN assembly has both pronounced verdict in favour of Mauritius , what is the next step . Should Mauritius lean politically towards China/India/Japan? Also, I'm eagerly waiting for the video on the new Caledonia referendum for complete independence due for later this year . Would like to know your take on the situation. Thank You!
Thanks so much for the very kind words. I really appreciate it. Very good question on Mauritius. Interestingly, I saw some suggestions that the reason why it has become more open to keeping the military bases if it does regain control is down to India, which sees the value is working with the US against China. These geopolitical aspects are fascinating. And thanks so much for the excellent suggestion about New Caledonia. I certainly hope to do something on that.
Thanks James! Although i think bond between the Chagos Islands and Mauritius might be a little artificial given the populations involved, the forced resettlement sounds like something straight out of the 18th century. Anyhow, sometime maybe you could make a video on the Sikhs (Khalistan), the Tamil Tigers (Eelam), or the Basques --- but actually, all the videos you make are interesting and educational.
Thanks. Yes, I think that there is a certain scepticism is certain quarters. However, as you point out, the deportation was appalling. Thanks so much for the other great suggestions. I think I have a good angle for Sri Lanka.
Agree. The Chagos islanders have little in common with the hindu majority people of Mauritius. (all but one leader of government on Mauritius since independence have been hindu) Self determination for the Chagossians would mean the option of choosing their future status themselves. This is not reflected in the U.N. ICJ advice, as far as I know. The list of disputes arising from the integration of people of various origin and identity into nation states must be legendary. Further examples include Indonesia, where the people of Papuan or native Borneo Dayak descent were incuded into the state, dominated by Javanese. This has caused major unrest and is testimony to the difficulty in fixing state boundaries by means determined or approved by the U.N.. My opinion regarding Chagos would be based upon the real world situation as it is today rather than on rulings invented by lawyers to satisfy international law. Those that have the power to do so will ignore judgements or advice anyway. Might is right is reality. The Chagossians are unlikely to desire being left at the mercy of Mauritius anyhow!. The option that I would favour would ignore the defective mechanism of international law and provide an option that actually reflects free determination for the Chagossians. The most likely outcome, in my estimation, would be a deal similar to the one reached with the island of Mayotte in the Comoro islands. The problems regarding rising sea levels and living on remote islands will make resettlement unattractive to many of those that could qualify anyway, most of whom have never even seen Chagos!. Please take a look at the youtube piece by Chagos trust to see where the real priorities should lie.
@@baronvonklik7159 I cannot agree more with you. I live in the Republic of Mauritius on the islands of Rodrigues and Rodriguans do not feel Mauritian even though we have the passports. Cost of living is higher, the chances of getting tertiary education is less, and so many other things that clearly demonstrate that we are second-class citizen, if citizen at all. And resettlement is unlikely. Knowing Mauritius lease the archipelagos to the USA if the UK follow the advisory opinion of the ICJ. The military operation will continue and the only change will be Mauritius administering the archipelagos.
Thanks for this useful article. Very well analyzed. The whole issue of colonisation was inhumane and cruel. To think that many European nations talk of human rights while they themselves continue to repress people and hold on to foreign territories that they grabbed and whose rightful inhabitants they grieviously mistreated. This is one of the sorriest instances of breakage of Human Rights. The British also forcibly removed people from their territories in Africa. In Kenya there is a case of Kipsigis people. I hope you get to talk about it in future.
En n. I thought the rightful inhabitants were brought to unpopulated islands ie the chagos? If the chagos were administered as part of Nigeria would that make them any more Nigerian that what Mauritius is seeking to do?
Really interesting behind the scenes look. Please do a video of China's claims of the South China Sea territories and the artificial land that it has been building to re-enforce that claim
very interesting video! britain maintains many colonies all over the world like Gibraltar, Cyprus military bases or Falkland islands. would it be possible any solution for any soon in time?
Thanks. Yes, they are all incredibly interesting issues. In fact, some have drawn parallels between the Chagos Islands and the establishment of the British Sovereign Bases in Cyprus. (Indeed, Cyprus actually took part in the ICJ case.) However, there are some key differences in the situations that could set them apart. Still, many wonder if Cyprus might one day pursue a case of its own at the ICJ. It will be interesting to see if it does.
@@noahbrown6970 Small correction: the Isle of Man is a crown dependency, a different status than everything else's "British overseas territories". Also, if Gibralter became a Constituent country, the UK might start making the argument that ascension is permanent (like what we in the US does with our states), so Gibralter should instead be given the option to ascend through referendums, as they might not have an option the other way.
@@noahbrown6970 Actually... Gibralter is considered an overseas territory, not a crown dependency... I don't know why, considering how loyal they've been to the kingdom, but I guess the UK decided it must be grouped with BIOT and Anguilla... But, yeah, I'm in agreement with all your prescriptive ideas. I'm just a nerd when it comes to history or geography.
If you have read this comment of mine, thank you for taking the time to read it and answering it if you want to What happened with your captions? Because the last time I remember, all of your videos have them-in other languages and in English as well, can you pls explain what happened to it so that I can understand
Miriam Velasco Thanks. I always try to provide subtitles. However, sometimes it takes a few days to do it. (It is actually surprisingly time intensive.) I will try to get them up as soon as I can. And thanks so much for your support. It’s really appreciated!
Thank you so much! That’s brilliant. So nice to hear from one of the early watchers. 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻😀 By the way, do let me know if there are any subjects you would like to see me cover. I do write down all ideas!
James Ker-Lindsay The last time that I saw you, it’s about the “History of the Philippines 🇵🇭” by Knowledgeia I remember mentioning to you about Southeast Asia right? As in the region where I was born and raised (in the Philippines 🇵🇭 specifically)
Thanks for the information, I have a request please, could you add a script to the video so it’s easier to non English speakers to fully understand the story.
Thanks so much. I know this can be a real problem and I have tried to make my videos more friendly to non-native English speakers. On advice from commenters, I have slowed down. (See my early videos compared to my later ones.) I also make sure that I add properly edited subtitles to all my videos. Unfortunately, I don’t think there is any way to add a script. But I will continue to look into ways to help make my videos more accessible. In the meantime, thank you so much for taking the time to comment. I really appreciate it!
Chagos Islands are how far from Mauritius and How close to Maldives? Centuries ago Chagos islands are captured by western powers. The distance from where I live the southern tip of Maldives Addu Atoll is just abt 450 miles to Chagos islands and Mauritius I guess 1000 of Miles away so my question is really Chagos really belongs to Mauritius or Maldives???
hello! i love the video! do you have any good resources for this particular dispute? journals, articles, etc..? there is very little that i can find on the chagos archipelago
This is an excellent piece of work setting out clearly the history of this dispute and the international decisions relating to the issue. And done dispassionately - more dispassion than I could muster because it is one of the most shocking abuses of human rights, to be thrown out of your homeland "paradise". It makes you wonder though if international law counts for much when the perpetrators of this evil deed merely shrug their shoulders and concoct some environmental reasons why the Chagossians cannot be allowed to return. Try sending in international troops to enforce international law and see how far that will get you. As a person of left-wing persuasion, this grave injustice grieves me all the more because it was the British Labour government that was responsible for this crime (against humanity?). Good that you are bringing these small forgotten, often unrecognized, places to public attention - Republika Srpska, Abkhazia, Kurds, South Ossetia, Kosovo and many more all deserve our concern.
Thanks this is useful. I have a question so, does the military interest that Britain has over the island prevail over sovereign rights of the chagocians?
It depends if you mean this from a moral, political or legal perspective. Morally, the rights of the Chagossians should prevail. Politically, the UK (and US) holds the islands and who is going to force it to give the archipelago up? Legally, the ICJ has determined that the islands should belong to Mauritius, though not entirely sure this is what the Chagos Islanders would want by default. So, in fact it is actually a rather difficult question.
@@JamesKerLindsay China will force the UK to give up the islands by way of economic and diplomatic pressure, exercising China's veto power and clamping down on its own territories in ways that have international consequences. China does not need more military bases to exert its influence, but it does benefit if the world has less enemy bases.
The islands were uninhabited before the French claimed them. There was no native population, workers were brought in when the French set up coconut plantations. They lived in accommodation provided by the company and owned no land or property. "By 1964, 80% of the population were Seychellois under 18-month or 2-year contracts". The British Government paid £650,000 for compensation to the 426 Ilois families [those of third generation descendants] displaced to Mauritius. The British Government gave a further £4 million to the surviving Chagossians on the express condition that all Chagossians sign a "full and final" document renouncing any right of return to the island".
The United Nations has a checkered past regarding General Assembly votes and their bias...but regardless. The initial deal included retention of the Chagos Islands, for which Mauritius was compensated, as long as it was deemed strategically important. It may not be in the nature of the UN, but "a deal is a deal". If treaties and deals don't matter then there's a whole lot of discussions that need to take place and the UN probably wouldn't like the results of many of those changes. I don't see the Chagos Islands going back to Mauritius until the situation with the CCP takes a dramatic turn. Let's turn that problem over to the UN and when they can get the CCP to abide by international "conventions" then there wouldn't be a strategic need for the UK and the US to maintain control of the Chagos Islands.
Thanks. The problem is that Mauritius successfully argued that its independence was effectively conditioned on giving up the islands. In this sense, it wasn’t really consensual. It was done under duress. It was also done in contravention of a UNGA resolution that colonial states would not be partitioned in this way. Britain is therefore in a very difficult position. By not respecting this ruling and the General Assembly resolution, its ability to lecture others on the importance of respecting international law is severely undermined.
@@JamesKerLindsay Prof...no one could argue against your very sound and valid points...except where nations believe an existential situation exists. The governments of the UK and US view Diego Garcia as vital to their defense and as such al other arguments take a backseat. The recent vote in the UN demanding Israel give up its nuclear weapons and turn control of its reactors is a definite non-starter. The American Jurist William Rehnquist authored a work about instances where the law was ignored titled "All the Laws but One". The title comes from a quote by Abraham Lincoln, who when asked how he could defy the US Supreme Court and the US Constitution he replied that "Are all the laws but one go unexecuted and the government itself to go to pieces that one be violated ?". Lincoln was faced by what he considered an existential threat and he chose what he felt was the correct choice. The Chief Justice at the time, Justice Tawney, when asked about Lincoln's response and what the Supreme Court proposed to do said "He has an Army and I do not". As sad as all that was from a legal, moral and ethical point of view; it was a truth that can't be denied. As for respecting international law, not that violating it can be justified by pointing out other instances where it is routinely violated, but enforcing international law is problematic when the violator(s) are the most powerful nation(s) on earth and those nations feel their very survival may rest on this specific issue.
I guess I don't believe that decolonization of sparsely populated oceanic territories was a good idea. I'd think that we shouldn't be treating entities without 10,000,000 inhabitants as sovereign nations. Instead, the world concerns should have been directed as securing full citizenship rights to those territories. Should some random county in the USA be able to become a separate country? Practically speaking, that wouldn't be allowed, but the world is concerned about a couple of thousand folks that once inhabited Diego Garcia? This doesn't seem reasonable.
Great presentation! On the pragmatic front, China is pouring hundreds of millions, if not billions, into any available island. They will almost certainly move into Diego Garcia the very next day after the British and Americans vacate. I believe they had tried leasing the former US Subic Bay naval base in the Philippines.
Thanks so much. Excellent point! You’re right. Beijing could well be looking to make such a move. The trouble is that this still puts the U.K. (and US) in a difficult position. It’s hard to call on others to respect international law when others can hold this up as a very clear example of how it goes against international law, the ICJ and UN GA.
Not sure what the outcome will be but I am skeptical it will be a return for rhe islanders and happy ever after. For a start I am not sure many would actually want to return, especially those who live in the UK. I can see it being leased by Mauritius to the US or it will become a playground of the rich like the Maldives.
The UN's persistence in classifing the BIOT as a part of Eastern Africa instead of the more reasonable Southern Asia indicates its position of supporting the Mauritian claim. France has also detached Clipperton Island from French Polynesia. If French Polynesia gains independence one day, they might also demand France to return Clipperton Island to them.
Perhaps when we in the West can be so perplexed when Russia or China thumbs its nose at a UN resolution, this is a good example of how the West does the same when it suits.
There are no natives as they all originate from Mauritius whose population does comprise peopl of African, Chinese, Indian and European origins! Get your distorted facts straight!
Chagos does not belong to Mauritius. Chagos belongs to its native indigenous people and its descendants who are now divided in Mauritius, Seychelles and UK. We do not believe Mauritius has the best interest of our people at heart. Chagossians should fight for the right to self determination. For too many years these two governments have been making decisions on our heads. This needs to end. Chagos belongs to Chagossians.
Thank you so much for the comment. This is a really important point! I think there is a tendency to automatically believe that it should be a part of Mauritius as it originally was a part of its territory that was removed by Britain. But the decision to make it a part of Mauritius was also an administrative decision that was made by colonial authorities. There are no deep rooted historical ties. To this extent, I would agree that the right of self-determination should include the option of independence and that the best interests of the Chagossians should be paramount. The problem is that one has to ask whether it might just be too small to exist as a state in its own right?
@@JamesKerLindsay I'm not sure if going straight towards self-determination and independence is the best option. Especially as the descendants and Chagossians have been banned from ever returning in 2016. But perhaps the idea of self-determination under continous British governance. Is there a definite amount of 'persons' that can determine self-determination. What would be enough to determine Chagossians rights to self-determination...?
There's no such thing as a native chagos Islander Europeans were the first settlers. Mauritius claim is based on British empire owning Mauritius administrating chagos That's a ridiculous claim
@@TheMagicJIZZ you clearly need to do some more research. The island was populated during 1800s by slaves from Africa and India, brought over by the British. After slavery was abolished the Africans and Indians stayed on the islands working on coconut plantations. These people populated the island over 180 years or so until 1973 when the last inhabitants were forcibly removed by the British.
@@rosyleveque9812 you just explained my answer.. Europeans were the first people to live there use it. If African slaves were imported to Mauritius and then chagos bu definition the Europeans are the indigenous peoples of it. First nation to rule it Slaves don't have rights bu any definition. When they were french. They were freed and British inherited it. They aren't indigenous. Mauritius doesn't have a claim to it because Mauritius wasn't conquered by British. It was invented by them Mauritius using the claim the British empire invaded and created Mauritius to then have a local government administrator of the chagos means they are saying without the empire modern Mauritius wouldn't exist You can't use the colonial arguement to determine you own something. If the British own it It's no different then a local UK housing estate getting claimed. It's called eminent domain. They are UK citizen Mauritius did not exist until the 1960s and never existed without the Europeans in the first place..they aren't indigenous like native American
Ah yes. Chagos... It's unfortunately become far too strategically important for the US for the dispute to be resolved in the way everyone would prefer. I'm afraid this week continue being one of the geniune hypocriticies of US and UK foreign policy for some time.
Chagos has historical avidence with India not with any other country so the iland can be a part of country other than Britain is Indian not any other country has to right on these ilands
This military base is of no use today as it can be wiped out in a few seconds by a missile launched from a submarine. An hypersonic missile launched from a land base can do the trick too! There are armed satellites hovering permanently over the base. The base was used to murder thousands of innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Chagos is over a thousand miles from Mauritius. How can the Mauritians claim a place, that they've never even been to, on the grounds that it was under the same colonial government as they were? I think that Mauritius should be ruled by Madagascar because it's close to them.
Thanks. The decision is based on the principle that colonial powers should not break up colonial territories prior to independence. I know it may not make sense in all cases, but it was agreed by the UN General Assembly and this is the basis of the ICJ decision.
@@JamesKerLindsay Thanks for your reply. I just wish that China and Russia took more notice of UN resolutions. All nations were once Empire builders. Should all Continental Americans go back to Europe?
@@parveshramashire8911 the UK is a global nation. You're referring to great Britain. Europeans are the first people to settle chagos therefore the indigenous
David jordan mauritius was under colonial rules for a couple of centuries it is now a republic and doesn't need to be ruled by madagascar or anybody else , and to go by your logic why are the uk ruling the falklands they are not exatly neighbours are they
we see everyday about china makes island to south china sea but when something about west their media are not too much interested in writing about it. thank you for infos.
The island is too strategically important to be given up - unfortunately for the islanders. From a US/UK perspective regional security and the balance of power in the Indian Ocean far outweighs the plight of a few thousand islanders. The famous Melian Dialogue comes to mind - 'the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must'.
You are wrong to say the security and balance of power in the region far outweighs the plight of a few thousand islanders we are talking about real people here don't forget that the islands were stolen from the natives and the uk got caught out and the highest court in the world has asked them to return the island which so far they have declined, regardless of the islands strategic importance when you steal you lie and commit barbaric acts and you get caught you pay the price by returning what was never yours to the islanders
Imagine you buy a car and a previous owner tries to take it from you. Britain paid for those islands,it's really simple. I guess Britain might be open to selling them but definitely not just going to surrender them lol
Not really sure that you got what the Court said. Imagine you beat someone up and stole the house they were looking after. But then the residents of the house, who were legally recognised as having the right to own the house, want it and you say that you’ll only give it to them if they give you half the garden, including a nicely located garden house with a useful garage. (From which you promptly evict the residents.) Realising the only way they’ll get the house that’s theirs, they have to give up the garden. By anyone’s definition, that’s duress. Contracts reached under duress can be set aside. That’s pretty much what the ICJ said. You can’t take something from someone and only agree to give it back on condition you keep part of it - even if you pay them. Now, of course, the police aren’t in a place to do anything about it for various reasons, but the rest of the residents of the street think you’re in the wrong. Now, what do you think happens when next decide to lecture your neighbours on right and wrong and, more to the point, you want their help because another resident has been annoying you?
Prof other than the chagos being administered from Mauritius what logic is there that they are Mauritian territory? It makes as much sense as if they If they had been administered from Canada
Forcibly removing the local population is criminal. Usa and uk should be prosecuted for human right violation and crime against humanity. Looking at it under the current situation in ucraine you can clearly see the hypocrisy, usa and uk can do what they like but no others are allowed. N
The Question of the Malvinas Islands, understood as the sovereignty dispute between the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia, South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime spaces, has its origin on January 3, 1833 when the The United Kingdom, breaking the Argentine territorial integrity, illegally occupied the islands and expelled the Argentine authorities, preventing their return as well as the settlement of Argentines from the continental territory. Since then, Argentina has regularly protested the British occupation, ratifying its sovereignty and affirming that its recovery, in accordance with international law, constitutes a permanent and inalienable objective. The Malvinas Question has been classified by the United Nations as a case of special and particular colonial decolonization, where there is an underlying sovereignty dispute and therefore, unlike traditional colonial cases, the principle of self-determination of peoples is not applicable. On December 16, 1965, the General Assembly adopted resolution 2065 (XX), through which it recognized the existence of a sovereignty dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom and invited both countries to enter into negotiations to find a solution. peaceful and definitive to the controversy, taking into account the interests of the inhabitants of the islands. Since then, more than 40 resolutions of the General Assembly and the Special Committee on Decolonization have reiterated this call. In addition to the successive resolutions of the General Assembly and the treatment of the Question in the Decolonization Committee, Argentina has the firm support of the Latin American countries for their legitimate sovereign rights over the Malvinas, South Georgia and Sandwich Islands. of the South and the surrounding maritime spaces, and the call for the resumption of negotiations is shared by the Organization of American States, the G77 plus China, and other multilateral and regional forums.
@iRyannity Duke of Wellington, Prime Minister in 1834: "I have reviewed all the papers relating to the Falklands. By no means do I find it clear that we have ever held sovereignty over the Falklands." On the other hand, UK after the 1968 memorandum of understanding proposed a condominium between both countries but was frustrated by the Death of Perón (1974) ... chronologically a plate does not give right and everything Spanish in America by utti possidetis iuris is of the Americans but in the Falklands there were Argentines and for many decades before the military invasion expulsion of inhabitants ... I gave him two estoppel.
Thanks to you I've learned that my country is not alone in this struggle in which the uk interferes with the territorial integrity and has illegally expelled inhabitants and implanted british people (military personnel -accepted immigrants and created military bases. It's crazy and the rest of the world can't understand how bad it is...cause they don't have to face threats and danger. Self determination is a very important right. But it is crazy to believe that a group of people can determine borders because that right has effects only on themselves... they can righteously opt to be british... but the land is a completely different debate. There're britons living all around the world... following the alleged idea that they can decide that every land they step foot on.. is british, then the whole world would be Britain.. which of course is not the case at all. Self determination (when speaking about implanted populations from a few generations ago) should only provide them with the nationality they desire and live as emigrants in foreign land just like millions across the world who leave their country to live in another but keeping their papers. Territorial integrity is key... Chagos has little to nothing to do with britain.
To the uninitiated, it may seem a little odd that the Islands are now deemed to belong to Mauritius, just because colonial brits decided to base the administration of the islands in Port Lois a hundred years or so ago. Why does the U.N and the I.C.J. not let the Islanders determine what they want? Those deported to Mauritius will presumably not have wished to live as outsiders in a hindu dominated country. Did they choose to be Mauritian nationals? Where is the right to self determination here?. Hopefully there will not be some sort of repeat of the west new Guinea dispute on a small scale!. Does International law represent the will of those that are subject to rulings or `advisories'?. Why does the U.K. then not give the Chagossians an option similar to that given to Mayotte in the Comoro islands by the French?. Could this be a case of the law being an ass?. Another aspect that may influence any outcome is the likelyhood that many of those that identify as Chagossian have never seen Chagos and may not prefer to live on small remote islands at all!. I believe less than two thousand were shamefully evicted all those years ago. Today there are around ten thousand that identify as Chagossian. Would they all want to return to the homeland of their ancestors? With rising sea levels, the attractiveness of living on small remote islands is surely not what it may once have been. What I find remarkable is that the development of the military base on Diego garcia was partly due to conservationists. Julian Huxley (among others) opposed the use of Aldabra due to it's importance as a nature reserve. The conservation of the islanders on Chagos, it appears, was seen as less important. Today conservation of our natural heritage seems more important than ever!. Aldabra is still a protected site today. Similarly, the marine protected area around Chagos is very important. An estimated 90% of species in the charge of the U.K. dwell in the waters around Chagos. Try telling the British public today that Boris intends to give up 90% of creatures in British charge!. Please take a look at the youtube contribution by the Chagos conservation trust. Is this where the real priority should lie?.
@@Someone-vq4xcPlease pardon my delayed reply!.The information on the whole sad affair that I have been able to access leaves the impression that the Chagos islanders and their decendants live a largely segregated life on Mauritius. While modern societies are based on inclusion and equality, reality is often on an entirely different planet. We all know that the best intentions are all to often stymied by the real world. This is why I believe that the status of the islanders as nationals of Mauritius is arbtitrary and a false construction. In International law the preservation of the title to territory overrides the right of self determination (jus cogens) which leaves the islanders in an unenviable situation after the Icj advisory.(not that most would ever be likely to return there!) I believe that the current status of Chagos preserves a most important natural marine habitat the size of France in the middle of the Indian ocean, and I would like to see a world heritage site status given to the whole area. At the moment, it is only due to the military presence on Diego Garcia that the natural treasure of Chagos can be defended and preserved.
@@baronvonklik7159 chagos are for chagossian and UK should return it to it's idigigsnous people. A British Saying that chagos ecosystems should be protected sound a bit hypocritical because today only 17% of Mauritius is covered by forest. These colonisers deforested Mauritius for sugar plantation they destroyed Mauritius beauty.
@@parveshramjutton7568 Thank you for your reply. While it is true that those responsible for the destruction of the original forest and wildlife on Mauritius were indeed the colonial French and British, the world has since moved on. Few civilised folks of the modern era would now support the sort of behaviour that our ancestors considered normal!. I can confidently assume that this would also apply to the people of Mauritius. It is perhaps a luxury of developed nations that we now recognize the value of the natural world, and are no longer forced to disregard nature to further our interests. Please accept that we, today, are not the same as our ancestors. The Chagos islands were retained by the U.K. for strategic reasons, a military presence in the Indian ocean by "the west" is still considered important. Perhaps you should consider this presence an element to guarantee world stability which could also be in the interest of the people of Mauritius. The Chagos islands had a small population of contract workers employed by the Chagos Agalega company based in Mahe´, Seychelles. Some had lived there with their families for generations, but they were not "indignious", the islands were originally unpopulated. Nevertheless, the manner in which these people were removed was shameful, and cannot be defended. These islanders had little connection to Mauritius, and some now live in the U.K. (Mainly decendants) The people that now call themselves Chagossians are largely folks that have never lived on these remote islands, and are unlikely to be able to exist there without massive support from outside. I also doubt that the younger Chagossians would prefer to live their lives on small remote islands nowadays. Please support the concept of keeping Chagos as a protected area, as this is certainly the most important feature of Chagos. The natural treasure of Chagos can currently only be guaranteed by the military presence as far as I can see.
@@baronvonklik7159 I agree that most of the new generation of European are not like there ancestors but will stand that chagos should be return to chagossian. sorry if it sounded rude it was not my intention. 2) it's not like chagoss are being handed to a poor country of Africa. Mauritius is a well developed country I guess chagoswis not going i in the wrong hand. Mauritians are echo friendly people probably closer to chagos than UK as it is located in Indian Ocean it take better care of chagos. Mauritius have other islands as well saint Brandon, rodrigue their natural beauty are intact untouched. U saying that Mauritius wont be able to conserve the beauty of chagos when it is already handling 4 paradise islands namely mauritius, rodrigue saint Brandon and agalega. 🙂 3) through this logic tomorrow British might tommorrow reclaim Mauritius and Seychelles and deport the population to India not to forget the ancestors of theese countries were contracted workers. 4) Maybe the folk claiming to be chagossian never lived in chagos but we must not forget it's their heritage. That land were the former home of their ancestors so it's their right to fight for it.
From a real politik standpoint there is little chance to get it back. I wouldn't give it back only for the Chinese to buy it outright with a belt and road type "investment." Sorry not sorry. Compensation is completely appropriate. Finally How far back retroactively are we going to apply international law to current polities? There would be endless instability and claims.
How come the US and UK are not sanctioned and be accountable for this injustice?! You may also want see this interview on the same topic: ua-cam.com/video/IcvFLHU9qJM/v-deo.html
Why India should not be part of UNSC member ????Even if I don’t like India,we cannot deny that India will become a powerful nation in few decades and its economic and military influence will be felt across the globe just like china. I believe that to maintain global peace,powerful countries need to cooperate and resolve through diplomatic means.we are heading towards multi polar world because many developing countries are becoming powerful economically and militarily.The world is no more Eurocentric nowadays and economic influence is shifting towards Asia
Haha! Nice try. By the way, keep an eye out for this week’s video. I’m covering another similar case. But this time it’s France that’s in the bad books! :-)
I love the EU flag behind you it speaks volumes. You do have to wonder if there wasn’t a huge US base would the Mauritius islands really give a fig. I do though agree with you in saying how this could give an indication of the dwindling influence the U.K. and USA have in the world, it could also indicate the dwindling interest the US has in the UN. For all the noise the islands will not be given to Mauritius as soon afterwards there would be a Chinese base built on it.
Interesting that everyone notices the flag. I’ve never hidden my views on this. The amusing thing is that over my right shoulder is a One Pound Note - as great a symbol of Britishness as one could find. In fact, as a bit of history, it is from the First World War and bears the signature of my great-grandfather, who was Permanent Secretary of the Treasury and the government’s chief financial advisor at the time. So, it seems that Brexiters certainly aren’t the only ones with a claim to authentic Britishness! :-) On Chagos, I do think that Mauritius genuinely wants the territory back. Few countries like to lose land. (Here another video I did on this very subject ua-cam.com/video/M5-8Vtogy3M/v-deo.html) But I also think you’re right about the extra incentive for taking back control of the islands. Financial gain often drives these things.
James Ker-Lindsay good answer, I am not that fussed either way with Brexit, it is poor of me to make assumptions about the sort of people who have European flags. We actually had a huge debate about this at work about 4 months ago, it extended to chicken tikka masala, we have a cosmopolitan environment, the group included 2 people from Mauritius, 1 Indian, one Indian who was born and raised in Abu Dhabi and has been to India 6 times, an Emirati and finally me. The point came down after all the arguing about Alaska and Kashmir and the Andaman Islands, via Gibraltar and the Falklands, that the two from Mauritius wouldn’t want the Chagos islands if they didn’t get the money from Diego Garcia, had to repay the U.K. the money paid for the islands and had to ensure it was sufficiently protected without external help from the like of China, ie if it was a burden to them. I live in Abu Dhabi, hence the conversation. If you want interesting future topics the Trucial states would be excellent with the changing state of the UAE. Or the mentioned Andaman Islands
@@reazallykhan they were ha-pay to take the money in the 1970’s. Funny how it changes when you build a navel base there. Gosh anyone could be cynical and think they are only in it for the money
Better return to the people of chagos under Mauritian administration.. This is illegal but its not surprise as britain does this for years in my countries
Chagos Islands is a very upsetting subject because the Indian Ocean is where the slave trade took place. I'm not sure why UK and America tell this story about West African slavery that did not really occur. The African slaves were described as being the Pagans (Nword, Tri Racial Aboriginals, Blacks). Also, the Dutch documented that they ordered the enslavement of Pagans and not Africans because they were highly diverse of all colors (Coloreds). At the time Austronesians were called Senegalese but they are 100% Indians. Hence the reason why the words Mother, Indien, Mor, Black, N word, Pagans... Are all the same words in various Proto Indo languages.
And your point? I really don’t need to be lectured on my loyalties. If you look over my left right shoulder, I actually have a framed One Pound note. A note signed by my great grandfather, the permanent secretary of the treasury and the government’s chief financial advisor during World War One. And if you think that questioning Britain’s position on international law is unpatriotic, then I have to say that you have a very warped view of the values that this country should stand for! Indeed, the fact that waving a flag is the definition of a good Brit in the minds of many people these days, rather than upholding real British values, largely explains why this country is now in the mess that it is!
@@JamesKerLindsay not totally idiotic. They were uninhabited, until the French created plantations. The ownership of the plantations passed through several companies, until the British bought those companies, shortly before creating BIOT. So the UK could be said to be the legal land owners. If the international courts decide that the Chagossians should have ownership, then surely they deserve all income from leased out land. Therefore all the rent the US pays for its military base should be paid directly to the Chagossians. That is the only moral outcome. Did any of the international courts, or British and Mauritian governments ever consult the Chagossians? If there is any substantial money involved, experience shows it will primarily end in up in one particular place, the lawyers pockets.
Although the Chagos Islands might not be one of the best known disputes in international politics, it is incredibly important for a number of reasons. It touches on decolonisation and human rights, as well as on key questions of international security - including the future of a strategically significant military base in the middle of the Indian Ocean. It also involves serious questions about international law and the authority of the UN General Assembly and the International Court of Justice.
Thanks for watching. If you found this video useful, please do consider giving it a 'Like' and sharing it with others who might be interested. And do all consider subscribing. It helps the channel to grow! Much appreciated!
James, you might want to review this new book:
Boxing Pandora: Rethinking Borders, States, and Secession in a Democratic World
by Timothy William Waters
Red-State Secession Thanks so much for the great suggestion!
..zzzz..oz
U r somewhat ryt. But we r forgetting one thing. What do real inhabitants want? The chagossians? They dont share ancestral link with majority mauritians who r of Indian origin. Morever, chagos is having rich environment. Mostly farming and fishing will be done. Maldives is near to chagos (500 km) than Mauritius which is far off (2000km). So they can do better trade with maldives. Morever geographically, chagos is part of laccadive-Maldives-chagos archipelago nd ridge. So in that way too Mauritius cant claim a piece of land which falls in other continent. Chagos is not a part of africa. Chagossians should be allowed to return to their island and ask them what they want??? Do they want to give away their uk citizenship over Mauritius citizenship nd be under Indo-mauritians. Or be like renioun island/Puerto rico nd live better lives,bcoz just few years back many chagossians are leaving Mauritius nd coming to uk for educating their children.
@@RedStateSecession You can leave red state. Just realize that you take your proportion of debt and you don't get the USD. The red states are net receivers of subsidies from "blue" states. Good luck with that!
Oh wow, I have heard of Diego Garcia but never of the rest of this dispute, thank you for making a video of it!
Thanks! So true. Many people will indeed have heard of Diego Garcia. It is one of those places that pops up in news reports from time-to-time. However, as you say, it’s likely that they don’t know about the wider dispute surrounding the base. It is also telling how much support Mauritius enjoys at the UN over this.
@@JamesKerLindsay Yeah im surprised over how many countries chose to support Mauritius instead of UK and USA.
Yep it’s been well hidden
Thank you so much for this video! ☺️ I have my International Law exam tomorrow, and this dispute was included among the relevant cases on the right to self-determination of people. The whole case was quite obscure to me, but with your explanation everything now makes sense, and I definitely agree when you say that this case is actually far more important than many may realize, very interesting how UK is claiming its rights over the Chagos Islands as a strategic base to fight international terrorism and organized crime.. Could use this case as a reference in my dissertation on the fight against drug trafficking in the Middle East!
Hi Alice, thank you so much for the lovely message. It was really kind of you to let me know - especially in the midst of revision! I am so glad it helped. Very best of luck with the exam tomorrow!
@Alice Augelli How did you get on in your international law exam?
Thank you for this clear insight. You mention that under the Treaty of Paris Britain decided to retain sovereignty over Mauritius, Chagos Archipelagos and Seychelles. There's also Rodrigues Island and Agalega and Saint Brandon. These islands are now integral part of the Republic of Mauritius (though considered as second class citizen, but this is another issue).
And I am from Rodrigues Island. So this is of particular interest to me not only because I am studying law but because of our non-participation as Rodriguan in the independence discussions between Mauritius and Britain. 95% of Rodriguans were against the annexation to Mauritius but we had no representatives in the National Assembly to voice out this then (people of Rodrigues did not have voting rights) and I wonder how this would have turned out if we had one.
Thanks so much. That’s a fascinating element that I didn’t know about. It is amazing that this whole issue is still continuing. It has been a real embarrassment to the U.K. Obviously, there’s a strong political dimension to it too, but it has shown how Britain’s standing has dropped in recent years.
First video I’ve watched on this channel, very impressed with your clear and concise presentation of facts without your personal opinion thrown in.
In addition, great questions to leave with at the end of the video.
Thank you so much! I’m delighted you have found the channel. I do sometime slip in some personal thoughts, but on the whole I try to keep my videos factually focused with an emphasis on analysis.
On the surface, there appears to be a correlation between the UK and the US loosing international influence and this hearing. Also, I have to agree with you when you said that the UK ignoring this decision would undermine the government's efforts to play a larger role in international affairs post-Brexit. These decisions are advisory, yes, but sometimes disregarding advice isn't a good idea. It's a shame that not a lot of people know about the Chagos Archipelago sovereignty dispute. It's also a shame that the inhabitants were forcibly removed from their homeland against their will. I understand why, but that is a serious human rights issue.
Thanks. Completely agree. The UK would argue that it is all about politics. Yes, it is. But in the past it could at least work on its EU partners to lend some support. That’s now gone and there is a large part of the world eagerly lining up to put the boot in. It is a huge problem for UK diplomacy - and one I suspect will get worse.
@@JamesKerLindsay UN Has always been useless. I don't think they will ever leave Diego Garcia because the people who used to live their were not indigenous people bu descendants of slaves brought by the french so it doesn't make sense
Thank you for the video! Very well explained and indeed an interesting ICJ Advisory Opinion. Here’s hoping on a good grade on my public international law exam! 😁👍🏼
Thanks. So pleased it was useful. I’ll keep my fingers crossed for you!
James can talk about the cabinda conflict . The province of cabinda have a succession group , but the succession failed . I think this conflict is a topic should be more talked about. The reason why they cannot succeed or gain autonomy because of alot of oil found in the province
Thanks a lot for the great suggestion! I actually have it marked down on my - rather long and growing - list. :-) I’ll certainly try to do one on it. In the meantime, I hope you are well.
I come from Mauritius...growing up in Port Louis ....I had chagosian friends ...these ppl went thru a lot ...struggle....very unfair
Absolutely great video! And one could only imagine what the full effects of the implications that you've mentioned will be? But the vote being this way and all during post-Brexit... Regardless I do feel it's unfortunate for the people who were removed, but the strategic importance of Diego Garcia seems pretty self-evident that a great power is going to be occupying that base for decades to come. I do think there is something to great powers holding or creating islands for power projection (and by that notion what that does mean for the autonomy of many Pacific islands).
Thanks so much. I really appreciate it! It is a really fascinating dispute because it touches on so many different issues. And yet it is so little known. It also attracts very little interest. (Interestingly, the number of views on this video is *significantly* lower than on my other videos! Curiously, there’s almost no comments from Chagos Islanders or Mauritians. Usually, there is some chatter from countries I cover.) But you are also really right to note that it is a complex issue inasmuch as there is no doubt that the strategic location is vital for the UK and US and that Diego Garcia plays an important role in their defence and security. But then one also has to ask whether they could work out a deal with Mauritius?
Hmm... Thanks for making this... Yeah I apologize for my previous comment on the Crimea video. I am impressed that you call it out even if it is about your country. I think it's interesting why Britain and the US want to hold onto those islands. I assume that it's because it's strategically located. This was a good video James. Is there anyway Mauritius can try to reclaim them?
Thanks! I told you. The channel is about interested in international law and politics and so I am happy to point out inconsistencies and wrongdoing by Western countries as much as by any other countries. In any case, you can atone for your previous comments by subscribing! :-)
As for Mauritius, there isn't really much more it can do. It has an ICJ Advisory Opinion in its favour as well as UN General Assembly resolutions. It can't get a Security Council resolution for the obvious reason of the UK's veto. And any military action is not going to succeed. The best it can hope to do is continue to keep up the pressure and hope that at some point things will change.
@@JamesKerLindsay Here is a recent development on the issue, a 28 January judgment by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/press_releases_english/PR_313_EN.pdf According to an analyst, "the Chamber’s judgment is yet another important nail in the coffin for the UK’s claims to overseas territory and a victory in the fight for decolonisation". www.ejiltalk.org/the-curious-case-of-the-legal-effect-of-icj-advisory-opinions-in-the-mauritius-maldives-maritime-boundary-dispute/ Well, that coffin remains to be seen...
I would be keen to hear your take on Guantanamo Bay and the US bases in Okinawa, along the same lines as this one.
Great Video!! Thank you Professor !!
Thank you. It really is an important case.
Amazing video never heard about thus sad chapter! 😮
Wow, I never knew this was even a thing
Hi Omar, Yes. It’s amazing how little known this dispute is - especially given the issues involved and that it has even been taken up by the UN General Assembly and the International Court of Justice.
@@JamesKerLindsay surprising the media didn't talk about these events at all
@@AD-jq7ow .
Chagos islands are quite a distance from Mauritius.
Yes, when looked at on the map they do seem very far away indeed. However, it seems that they aren’t viable as an independent state in their own right, and, interestingly, Mauritius’s ultimate claim over them seems universally accepted - even by the islands’ other neighbours (the Seychelles and Maldives) and by the United Kingdom, which, as I note, has accepted that they will be returned to Mauritius when it no longer needs them.
Have you seen french overseas territories??? Or british as a matter of fact!
UK is not even in Indian Ocean yet its claiming right over chagos
@parveshramjutton7568 As he explains in the video, the United Kingdom's claim comes down to a very old-fashioned Terra Nullius. There has only ever been one modern state in control of the area and that is the UK. The question of the legitimacy of that claim hinges on the other questions which the professor expounds on.
Thanks a lot James 👌
Never knew this was a thing.
Thanks so much. Perhaps surprisingly, it really doesn’t get much coverage.
You forgot to mention that the UK is, as of November 23 2022, attributing British citizenship to the descendants of the Chagossians (that will be arounds 35000 persons living in Mauritius and the Seychelles).
Even the UN General Assembly resolution is ignored by the UK. What right do they have to claim high moral ground?
Asking Britain to give up this island is like asking Russia to give up Crimea: it will never happen
Except Crimea is Russian and the "B"IOT aren't British
Britain is also more democratic than Russia,therefore being more open-minded. Russia is ruled by a former Soviet union spy who still has some ideals of the Soviet union whilst Britain is ruled by a monarchy and parliament. The parliament is currently under pressure with a scandal. Putin also has less restrictions as Britain's government relies on the monarchy and vice versa for inducing legislation and such.
@@youvrajessurredeen496 I was born and raised in the UK and I'm of Russian origin. The police raided our house when I was 9 for no reason. I have yet to have my house raided or police pointing guns at me in Ukraine (where my mother is from) or in Russia. I suppose you've never been to the UK, I'd like to share my opinion of someone who was born and raised there.
@@MuzzaHukka Democracy is glorified in the West, much of the time it involves electing governments with low turnouts, who use power to oppress minorities. The majority are fine with that. I was born and raised here too.
It's happening. Chagos belongs to Mauritania, how does it belong to country thousands of km afar
Fascinating story. Will be interesting to see what happens next.
Mauritius never owned the islands it was only grouped up in a federation administrated from there and britain brought the islands. Yes return the islanders but the archipelago is owned by britain, the government paid millions in reparations to Mauritius to give to the islanders but they kept it
Thanks. But the ICJ considered all the evidence and decided Britain is in the wrong. By the way, almost all colonial boundaries are artificial. That’s why the principle of respecting those borders - as manufactured as they may be - is so important.
@@JamesKerLindsay Britain never even really tried to defend itself... So why would an imported work force and a country gain legit claims over land becuase the old ''mother country'' once put them in a artificial boarder? Yet the old ''mother country'' who owned it before the colony lose its older and more legitimate claim
The ICJ is built of west loathing nations by now they even try to say Britain needs to resume sovereignty talks of the Falkland islands with Argentina.
As much as i respect this well put together video i will say
Mauritius has 0 claim to the islands, the deported people i would have them returned or all given UK citizenship their treatment has been disgraceful from basically all parties. Britain owned the islands before the two other claimants and we dont need waste our time in the western loathing icj at this point .
Great video👍👍
Thank you.
The arrogance of the english is incredible, forceful ejection of the indigenous people’s in the 1960’s from the Island. The UN has thankfully came to the right decision and called this occupation illegal. Give the islands back.
The UN is good at giving away places that don't belong to them. It's Global Security that's at stake here.lF Britain/US leaves a power vacuum, the Chinese will fill it. They're the Colonial Expansioners.
Hi, James! I love your videos, they are so organized and easy to understand, keep it up!
I also have a doubt that maybe you could help me with. You see, Mauritius is clearly sovereign over the Chagos Archipelago and the International Court of Justice has been very clear about it, but why doesn't the General Assembly include it in its list of territories subject to the process of decolonization? I was wondering the same about other territories like Mayotte, annexed by France from Comoros and, if we deeply think about it, why isn't Crimea or other territories under foreign occupation not listed there as well? I mean, the Falkland-Malvinas Islands and Gibraltar, both violations of territorial integrity, are listed and other territories that did not even have a population were listed, like the Fort of São João Baptista de Ajudá. If territories are sometimes listed because they constitute violations of territorial integrity, then why are so many left out, what is the difference, if any? I have been reading about it, but I couldn't get the answer to that question. Of course that I have many hypothesis, but I ultimately do not know the reason.
Thank you a lot!
Thank you so much. That is an excellent question. I must look into it. I can understand why territories like Crimea, which are essentially occupations, are not included. But not including other areas, such as BIOT, doesn’t on the fact of it make a lot of sense. By the way, technically, Gibraltar is not a territorial violation. It is the product of a Treaty. (I must do a video on this.) And the Falklands is also an interesting case. Argentina has a land claim. But the people living there want to be British. (Another case to explore.)
@@JamesKerLindsay Yes, I assumed that one of the criteria to include a territory in the decolonization list was that the foreign occupation had originated in a colonial context and not just in any context, such as the case of Crimea, but the thing is that I don't actually know what constitutes a colonial context. I understand that the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands, Gibraltar and Hong Kong presented populations under a colonial regime, this is, they were non-self-governing territories lacking self-determination, and thus they were listed because there existed a colonial context, but in the case of the Fort of São João Baptista de Ajudá there was no population. In my opinion, and this is just a hypothesis of mine, so it may be completely erred, the General Assembly listed the Fort of São João Baptista de Ajudá because, even though the "population" there was of about fifteen people at most (one governor, one assistant and their families - five people at the time of the annexation by Benin), I guess that the criteria to be included on the list is that there exists a population of any kind living under a colonial regime, no matter how small that population is. Today the least populated non-self-governing territory is the Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands with about fifty people, so I think it is reasonable to suppose that that was the logic of the General Assembly when including the Fort of São João Baptista de Ajudá on the list, and I guess that territories like the Chagos Archipelago, Mayotte and others are not listed because they constitute mere violations of territorial integrity with no colonial regime to speak of (I know that Chagossians want to return to their home and I support them in that obviously, but the point is that they are not currently living there under a colonial regime and thus the General Assembly won't list the territory as it lacks a colonial context). I've also read about the "colonial enclaves" doctrine, but I really don't buy it at all, it is simply illogical to me.
@@JamesKerLindsay As for the case of Gibraltar, I think it is a violation of territorial integrity. The Peace of Utrecht of 1713 did not cede the territory to Britain, it just ceded the settlement expressly without any territorial jurisdiction, without mentioning the right to recover the settlement if Britain ever wished to alienate it in any way. Britain annexed the territory as a British colony in 1830, violating the Spanish territorial integrity. UNGA resolution 2353 (XXII) is equally clear that self-determination is not the way to end this colonial situation and that the Spanish territorial integrity must be respected.
As for the case of the Falkland-Malvinas Islands, I have read many professors of international law and legal historians that have studied the question of sovereignty, including Rudolf Dolzer, Julius Goebel, Marcelo Kohen, among others, and they happen to agree every time that the islands are indeed Argentine territory under illegal British administration. The formula these authors present is essentially the same: the islands were first French through effective occupation, then ceded to Spain and then Argentine after its emancipation and subsequent administration and occupation of the islands. The British presence in the islands has always been illegal, whether in 1766 when they established a clandestine settlement in French territory, when usurped the territory in 1833, or today. As a result of this breach of international law, the right of peoples to self-determination is not applicable to this case. Every resolution that contributed to the development of the right of peoples to self-determination is very careful not to allow violations of territorial integrity and the International Court of Justice accordingly recognizes that the principle is applicable to all non-self-governing territories as long as the population constitutes a self-determination unit, which does not in this case. As British Judge Rosalyn Higgins, former president of the ICJ, said if the territory is Argentine, then the population has no exclusive right to self-determination, their self-determination is one and the same with that of the Argentines, because the islands are an integral part of Argentina. No General Assembly resolution has ever considered them a self-determination unit and when Britain attempted to include the right in a resolution, it was rejected outright. As long as the human rights of the population of the territory, including their autonomy, is respected, then they cannot serve as judges in a territorial dispute of this nature where usurpation is present, they cannot deprive Argentines of their territorial rights. Negotiations that take into account the Argentine territorial integrity and the interests of the population of the islands may lead to the creation of an autonomous province within Argentina, a British-Argentine condominium, or other outcomes, but one thing is clear: Argentines have the right to claim and regain what corresponds to them in law.
@@JamesKerLindsay Indeed please also look into Midway Atoll (perhaps @Atoll King knows something?) and why it's not also slated for decolonization, being that the U.S. admits it was claimed by the Hawaiian Kingdom on July 5, 1859, yet denies having formally annexed it and being that it was not claimed under the Guano Islands Act (which cannot form the basis of a permanent territorial claim in any event). And if indeed an occupation by the U.S. since August 28, 1867 as history suggests, then what is the purpose of the continued occupation and unnecessary expenditure of U.S. tax dollars? The U.S. seems to use a similar strategy of weaponizing conservation as a means of preventing the Hawaiian People from exercising their state sovereignty AND inherent sovereignty over their ancestral homelands on 'unincorporated' Midway Atoll. This makes the 1993 Apology Resolution (U.S. Pub. Law. 103-150) seem particularly disingenuous.
@@atollking201 I respectfully submit that the right to self-determination belongs to all Peoples, it is not a prerogative of the States to grant or deny. Article 1 of the ICCPR and ICESCR commit all State parties to implement it. Paragraph 80 of the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ on Kosovo stipulates that the principle of territorial integrity is for external use, and cannot deny the jus cogens right of self-determination. The scope of the principle of territorial integrity is confined to the sphere of relations between States and does not infringe on the right of ALL Peoples to self-determination. To say that some Peoples have rights that others don't is clearly unequal and I imagine that is why some prefer to engage in war rather than argue.
Helped me with international law studies! thanks!
Brilliant! So glad to hear it was useful. I hope some of the other videos are too. And if you know anyone else who might like the channel, please do let them know as well. Many thanks!
Thanks James for a very thorough content on the Chagos Islands dispute. As usual your videos are very informative & states facts rather than rumours. I'd like to know, legally what course of action could Mauritius take to get back their land. Since ICJ ruling & UN assembly has both pronounced verdict in favour of Mauritius , what is the next step . Should Mauritius lean politically towards China/India/Japan? Also, I'm eagerly waiting for the video on the new Caledonia referendum for complete independence due for later this year . Would like to know your take on the situation. Thank You!
Thanks so much for the very kind words. I really appreciate it. Very good question on Mauritius. Interestingly, I saw some suggestions that the reason why it has become more open to keeping the military bases if it does regain control is down to India, which sees the value is working with the US against China. These geopolitical aspects are fascinating. And thanks so much for the excellent suggestion about New Caledonia. I certainly hope to do something on that.
Very helpful! Thank you!
YT Nst Thanks a lot for letting me know. Glad it was useful. Always nice to hear.
Thanks James! Although i think bond between the Chagos Islands and Mauritius might be a little artificial given the populations involved, the forced resettlement sounds like something straight out of the 18th century. Anyhow, sometime maybe you could make a video on the Sikhs (Khalistan), the Tamil Tigers (Eelam), or the Basques --- but actually, all the videos you make are interesting and educational.
Thanks. Yes, I think that there is a certain scepticism is certain quarters. However, as you point out, the deportation was appalling. Thanks so much for the other great suggestions. I think I have a good angle for Sri Lanka.
Agree. The Chagos islanders have little in common with the hindu majority people of Mauritius. (all but one leader of government on Mauritius since independence have been hindu) Self determination for the Chagossians would mean the option of choosing their future status themselves. This is not reflected in the U.N. ICJ advice, as far as I know. The list of disputes arising from the integration of people of various origin and identity into nation states must be legendary. Further examples include Indonesia, where the people of Papuan or native Borneo Dayak descent were incuded into the state, dominated by Javanese. This has caused major unrest and is testimony to the difficulty in fixing state boundaries by means determined or approved by the U.N.. My opinion regarding Chagos would be based upon the real world situation as it is today rather than on rulings invented by lawyers to satisfy international law. Those that have the power to do so will ignore judgements or advice anyway. Might is right is reality. The Chagossians are unlikely to desire being left at the mercy of Mauritius anyhow!. The option that I would favour would ignore the defective mechanism of international law and provide an option that actually reflects free determination for the Chagossians. The most likely outcome, in my estimation, would be a deal similar to the one reached with the island of Mayotte in the Comoro islands. The problems regarding rising sea levels and living on remote islands will make resettlement unattractive to many of those that could qualify anyway, most of whom have never even seen Chagos!. Please take a look at the youtube piece by Chagos trust to see where the real priorities should lie.
@@baronvonklik7159 I cannot agree more with you. I live in the Republic of Mauritius on the islands of Rodrigues and Rodriguans do not feel Mauritian even though we have the passports. Cost of living is higher, the chances of getting tertiary education is less, and so many other things that clearly demonstrate that we are second-class citizen, if citizen at all. And resettlement is unlikely. Knowing Mauritius lease the archipelagos to the USA if the UK follow the advisory opinion of the ICJ. The military operation will continue and the only change will be Mauritius administering the archipelagos.
Thanks for this useful article. Very well analyzed. The whole issue of colonisation was inhumane and cruel. To think that many European nations talk of human rights while they themselves continue to repress people and hold on to foreign territories that they grabbed and whose rightful inhabitants they grieviously mistreated. This is one of the sorriest instances of breakage of Human Rights. The British also forcibly removed people from their territories in Africa. In Kenya there is a case of Kipsigis people. I hope you get to talk about it in future.
En n. I thought the rightful inhabitants were brought to unpopulated islands ie the chagos? If the chagos were administered as part of Nigeria would that make them any more Nigerian that what Mauritius is seeking to do?
Really interesting behind the scenes look. Please do a video of China's claims of the South China Sea territories and the artificial land that it has been building to re-enforce that claim
Thanks a lot. Great suggestion. It’s on my list.
That's how it's the hypocrisy of the British politicians How about the Malvinas or Gibraltar situation ?
Balochistan in Pakistan could be a good topic for a future video.
Many thanks. Excellent suggestion!
very interesting video! britain maintains many colonies all over the world like Gibraltar, Cyprus military bases or Falkland islands. would it be possible any solution for any soon in time?
Thanks. Yes, they are all incredibly interesting issues. In fact, some have drawn parallels between the Chagos Islands and the establishment of the British Sovereign Bases in Cyprus. (Indeed, Cyprus actually took part in the ICJ case.) However, there are some key differences in the situations that could set them apart. Still, many wonder if Cyprus might one day pursue a case of its own at the ICJ. It will be interesting to see if it does.
@@noahbrown6970 Small correction: the Isle of Man is a crown dependency, a different status than everything else's "British overseas territories". Also, if Gibralter became a Constituent country, the UK might start making the argument that ascension is permanent (like what we in the US does with our states), so Gibralter should instead be given the option to ascend through referendums, as they might not have an option the other way.
@@noahbrown6970 Actually... Gibralter is considered an overseas territory, not a crown dependency...
I don't know why, considering how loyal they've been to the kingdom, but I guess the UK decided it must be grouped with BIOT and Anguilla...
But, yeah, I'm in agreement with all your prescriptive ideas. I'm just a nerd when it comes to history or geography.
Thank you
Will there be an update video on this?
I hope the west papua case will follow chagos island in the international court.😢
If you have read this comment of mine, thank you for taking the time to read it and answering it if you want to
What happened with your captions? Because the last time I remember, all of your videos have them-in other languages and in English as well, can you pls explain what happened to it so that I can understand
Miriam Velasco Thanks. I always try to provide subtitles. However, sometimes it takes a few days to do it. (It is actually surprisingly time intensive.) I will try to get them up as soon as I can. And thanks so much for your support. It’s really appreciated!
James Ker-Lindsay
You’re welcome 😊 and I have been watching your channel since the “Why do countries hate losing territory” video of yours
Thank you so much! That’s brilliant. So nice to hear from one of the early watchers. 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻😀 By the way, do let me know if there are any subjects you would like to see me cover. I do write down all ideas!
James Ker-Lindsay
The last time that I saw you, it’s about the “History of the Philippines 🇵🇭” by Knowledgeia
I remember mentioning to you about Southeast Asia right? As in the region where I was born and raised (in the Philippines 🇵🇭 specifically)
Hi Miriam, just to let you know that the subtitles are now up. Sorry about the delay!
It doesn't look like Britain is going to give tem up so soon
Tem=them
Thanks for the information, I have a request please, could you add a script to the video so it’s easier to non English speakers to fully understand the story.
Thanks so much. I know this can be a real problem and I have tried to make my videos more friendly to non-native English speakers. On advice from commenters, I have slowed down. (See my early videos compared to my later ones.) I also make sure that I add properly edited subtitles to all my videos. Unfortunately, I don’t think there is any way to add a script. But I will continue to look into ways to help make my videos more accessible. In the meantime, thank you so much for taking the time to comment. I really appreciate it!
Chagos Islands are how far from Mauritius and How close to Maldives? Centuries ago Chagos islands are captured by western powers. The distance from where I live the southern tip of Maldives Addu Atoll is just abt 450 miles to Chagos islands and Mauritius I guess 1000 of Miles away so my question is really Chagos really belongs to Mauritius or Maldives???
hello! i love the video! do you have any good resources for this particular dispute? journals, articles, etc..? there is very little that i can find on the chagos archipelago
This is an excellent piece of work setting out clearly the history of this dispute and the international decisions relating to the issue. And done dispassionately - more dispassion than I could muster because it is one of the most shocking abuses of human rights, to be thrown out of your homeland "paradise". It makes you wonder though if international law counts for much when the perpetrators of this evil deed merely shrug their shoulders and concoct some environmental reasons why the Chagossians cannot be allowed to return. Try sending in international troops to enforce international law and see how far that will get you. As a person of left-wing persuasion, this grave injustice grieves me all the more because it was the British Labour government that was responsible for this crime (against humanity?). Good that you are bringing these small forgotten, often unrecognized, places to public attention - Republika Srpska, Abkhazia, Kurds, South Ossetia, Kosovo and many more all deserve our concern.
Thanks this is useful. I have a question so, does the military interest that Britain has over the island prevail over sovereign rights of the chagocians?
It depends if you mean this from a moral, political or legal perspective. Morally, the rights of the Chagossians should prevail. Politically, the UK (and US) holds the islands and who is going to force it to give the archipelago up? Legally, the ICJ has determined that the islands should belong to Mauritius, though not entirely sure this is what the Chagos Islanders would want by default. So, in fact it is actually a rather difficult question.
@@JamesKerLindsay interesting and I like how you look at it from both the legal and moral perspective. Thanks again.
@@JamesKerLindsay China will force the UK to give up the islands by way of economic and diplomatic pressure, exercising China's veto power and clamping down on its own territories in ways that have international consequences. China does not need more military bases to exert its influence, but it does benefit if the world has less enemy bases.
The islands were uninhabited before the French claimed them. There was no native population, workers were brought in when the French set up coconut plantations. They lived in accommodation provided by the company and owned no land or property. "By 1964, 80% of the population were Seychellois under 18-month or 2-year contracts". The British Government paid £650,000 for compensation to the 426 Ilois families [those of third generation descendants] displaced to Mauritius. The British Government gave a further £4 million to the surviving Chagossians on the express condition that all Chagossians sign a "full and final" document renouncing any right of return to the island".
The United Nations has a checkered past regarding General Assembly votes and their bias...but regardless. The initial deal included retention of the Chagos Islands, for which Mauritius was compensated, as long as it was deemed strategically important. It may not be in the nature of the UN, but "a deal is a deal". If treaties and deals don't matter then there's a whole lot of discussions that need to take place and the UN probably wouldn't like the results of many of those changes. I don't see the Chagos Islands going back to Mauritius until the situation with the CCP takes a dramatic turn. Let's turn that problem over to the UN and when they can get the CCP to abide by international "conventions" then there wouldn't be a strategic need for the UK and the US to maintain control of the Chagos Islands.
Thanks. The problem is that Mauritius successfully argued that its independence was effectively conditioned on giving up the islands. In this sense, it wasn’t really consensual. It was done under duress. It was also done in contravention of a UNGA resolution that colonial states would not be partitioned in this way. Britain is therefore in a very difficult position. By not respecting this ruling and the General Assembly resolution, its ability to lecture others on the importance of respecting international law is severely undermined.
@@JamesKerLindsay Prof...no one could argue against your very sound and valid points...except where nations believe an existential situation exists. The governments of the UK and US view Diego Garcia as vital to their defense and as such al other arguments take a backseat. The recent vote in the UN demanding Israel give up its nuclear weapons and turn control of its reactors is a definite non-starter. The American Jurist William Rehnquist authored a work about instances where the law was ignored titled "All the Laws but One". The title comes from a quote by Abraham Lincoln, who when asked how he could defy the US Supreme Court and the US Constitution he replied that "Are all the laws but one go unexecuted and the government itself to go to pieces that one be violated ?". Lincoln was faced by what he considered an existential threat and he chose what he felt was the correct choice. The Chief Justice at the time, Justice Tawney, when asked about Lincoln's response and what the Supreme Court proposed to do said "He has an Army and I do not". As sad as all that was from a legal, moral and ethical point of view; it was a truth that can't be denied. As for respecting international law, not that violating it can be justified by pointing out other instances where it is routinely violated, but enforcing international law is problematic when the violator(s) are the most powerful nation(s) on earth and those nations feel their very survival may rest on this specific issue.
They will now. Yes!
I guess I don't believe that decolonization of sparsely populated oceanic territories was a good idea. I'd think that we shouldn't be treating entities without 10,000,000 inhabitants as sovereign nations. Instead, the world concerns should have been directed as securing full citizenship rights to those territories. Should some random county in the USA be able to become a separate country? Practically speaking, that wouldn't be allowed, but the world is concerned about a couple of thousand folks that once inhabited Diego Garcia? This doesn't seem reasonable.
Great presentation! On the pragmatic front, China is pouring hundreds of millions, if not billions, into any available island. They will almost certainly move into Diego Garcia the very next day after the British and Americans vacate. I believe they had tried leasing the former US Subic Bay naval base in the Philippines.
Thanks so much. Excellent point! You’re right. Beijing could well be looking to make such a move. The trouble is that this still puts the U.K. (and US) in a difficult position. It’s hard to call on others to respect international law when others can hold this up as a very clear example of how it goes against international law, the ICJ and UN GA.
Not sure what the outcome will be but I am skeptical it will be a return for rhe islanders and happy ever after. For a start I am not sure many would actually want to return, especially those who live in the UK. I can see it being leased by Mauritius to the US or it will become a playground of the rich like the Maldives.
Finally Mauritius wins the case and Chargos Archipelago was returned back
No sign of that happening.
@@JamesKerLindsay
It happened
ua-cam.com/video/lGZVqW3r0K0/v-deo.html
@@gracenanette5809 It hasn’t been returned.
Well there goes the concept of "Rule of Law" and the "International Order". Basically the West goes by the dictum "vae victus".
The UN's persistence in classifing the BIOT as a part of Eastern Africa instead of the more reasonable Southern Asia indicates its position of supporting the Mauritian claim.
France has also detached Clipperton Island from French Polynesia. If French Polynesia gains independence one day, they might also demand France to return Clipperton Island to them.
When millitary bases are made people are often evicted and it's not controversial.
Perhaps when we in the West can be so perplexed when Russia or China thumbs its nose at a UN resolution, this is a good example of how the West does the same when it suits.
Food and water was stop, pets was killed brutally thus forcing people to leave the island...
Chagos islands belong to Mauritius 🇲🇺
The island belong to the natives.
There are no natives as they all originate from Mauritius whose population does comprise peopl of African, Chinese, Indian and European origins! Get your distorted facts straight!
Chagos does not belong to Mauritius. Chagos belongs to its native indigenous people and its descendants who are now divided in Mauritius, Seychelles and UK. We do not believe Mauritius has the best interest of our people at heart. Chagossians should fight for the right to self determination. For too many years these two governments have been making decisions on our heads. This needs to end. Chagos belongs to Chagossians.
Thank you so much for the comment. This is a really important point! I think there is a tendency to automatically believe that it should be a part of Mauritius as it originally was a part of its territory that was removed by Britain. But the decision to make it a part of Mauritius was also an administrative decision that was made by colonial authorities. There are no deep rooted historical ties. To this extent, I would agree that the right of self-determination should include the option of independence and that the best interests of the Chagossians should be paramount. The problem is that one has to ask whether it might just be too small to exist as a state in its own right?
@@JamesKerLindsay I'm not sure if going straight towards self-determination and independence is the best option. Especially as the descendants and Chagossians have been banned from ever returning in 2016. But perhaps the idea of self-determination under continous British governance. Is there a definite amount of 'persons' that can determine self-determination. What would be enough to determine Chagossians rights to self-determination...?
There's no such thing as a native chagos Islander
Europeans were the first settlers. Mauritius claim is based on British empire owning Mauritius administrating chagos
That's a ridiculous claim
@@TheMagicJIZZ you clearly need to do some more research. The island was populated during 1800s by slaves from Africa and India, brought over by the British. After slavery was abolished the Africans and Indians stayed on the islands working on coconut plantations. These people populated the island over 180 years or so until 1973 when the last inhabitants were forcibly removed by the British.
@@rosyleveque9812 you just explained my answer.. Europeans were the first people to live there use it.
If African slaves were imported to Mauritius and then chagos bu definition the Europeans are the indigenous peoples of it. First nation to rule it
Slaves don't have rights bu any definition. When they were french. They were freed and British inherited it.
They aren't indigenous. Mauritius doesn't have a claim to it because Mauritius wasn't conquered by British. It was invented by them
Mauritius using the claim the British empire invaded and created Mauritius to then have a local government administrator of the chagos means they are saying without the empire modern Mauritius wouldn't exist
You can't use the colonial arguement to determine you own something. If the British own it
It's no different then a local UK housing estate getting claimed. It's called eminent domain. They are UK citizen
Mauritius did not exist until the 1960s and never existed without the Europeans in the first place..they aren't indigenous like native American
Ah yes. Chagos... It's unfortunately become far too strategically important for the US for the dispute to be resolved in the way everyone would prefer.
I'm afraid this week continue being one of the geniune hypocriticies of US and UK foreign policy for some time.
CHAGOS ISLANDS Belong to UK, the bantu´d return back to Niger
Chagos has historical avidence with India not with any other country so the iland can be a part of country other than Britain is Indian not any other country has to right on these ilands
Chagos islands belong to Britain.
First time watch this video my bad come from chagos islands we always forget about the people who come from this place
Mauritius has no problem leasing the island to the US military base. Britain has to desert and lock this decolonization process completely
This military base is of no use today as it can be wiped out in a few seconds by a missile launched from a submarine. An hypersonic missile launched from a land base can do the trick too!
There are armed satellites hovering permanently over the base.
The base was used to murder thousands of innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Chagos is over a thousand miles from Mauritius. How can the Mauritians claim a place, that they've never even been to, on the grounds that it was under the same colonial government as they were? I think that Mauritius should be ruled by Madagascar because it's close to them.
Thanks. The decision is based on the principle that colonial powers should not break up colonial territories prior to independence. I know it may not make sense in all cases, but it was agreed by the UN General Assembly and this is the basis of the ICJ decision.
@@JamesKerLindsay Thanks for your reply. I just wish that China and Russia took more notice of UN resolutions. All nations were once Empire builders. Should all Continental Americans go back to Europe?
And where is the location of uk you dumb!
@@parveshramashire8911 the UK is a global nation. You're referring to great Britain.
Europeans are the first people to settle chagos therefore the indigenous
David jordan mauritius was under colonial rules for a couple of centuries it is now a republic and doesn't need to be ruled by madagascar or anybody else , and to go by your logic why are the uk ruling the falklands they are not exatly neighbours are they
we see everyday about china makes island to south china sea but when something about west their media are not too much interested in writing about it. thank you for infos.
The island is too strategically important to be given up - unfortunately for the islanders. From a US/UK perspective regional security and the balance of power in the Indian Ocean far outweighs the plight of a few thousand islanders. The famous Melian Dialogue comes to mind - 'the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must'.
You are wrong to say the security and balance of power in the region far outweighs the plight of a few thousand islanders we are talking about real people here don't forget that the islands were stolen from the natives and the uk got caught out and the highest court in the world has asked them to return the island which so far they have declined, regardless of the islands strategic importance when you steal you lie and commit barbaric acts and you get caught you pay the price by returning what was never yours to the islanders
But it originally belonged to India.
Imagine you buy a car and a previous owner tries to take it from you. Britain paid for those islands,it's really simple. I guess Britain might be open to selling them but definitely not just going to surrender them lol
Not really sure that you got what the Court said. Imagine you beat someone up and stole the house they were looking after. But then the residents of the house, who were legally recognised as having the right to own the house, want it and you say that you’ll only give it to them if they give you half the garden, including a nicely located garden house with a useful garage. (From which you promptly evict the residents.) Realising the only way they’ll get the house that’s theirs, they have to give up the garden. By anyone’s definition, that’s duress. Contracts reached under duress can be set aside. That’s pretty much what the ICJ said. You can’t take something from someone and only agree to give it back on condition you keep part of it - even if you pay them. Now, of course, the police aren’t in a place to do anything about it for various reasons, but the rest of the residents of the street think you’re in the wrong. Now, what do you think happens when next decide to lecture your neighbours on right and wrong and, more to the point, you want their help because another resident has been annoying you?
@@JamesKerLindsay precisely why Hawaii should be returned to Hawaiian nationals.
Prof other than the chagos being administered from Mauritius what logic is there that they are Mauritian territory? It makes as much sense as if they If they had been administered from Canada
UK is fine with Ethnic cleansing if it means political gain
Shame to the U.K and U.S!
Forcibly removing the local population is criminal. Usa and uk should be prosecuted for human right violation and crime against humanity. Looking at it under the current situation in ucraine you can clearly see the hypocrisy, usa and uk can do what they like but no others are allowed. N
nope you cant, russia invaded ukraine with tanks, uk just planted flags , rly not the same thing.
US and UK are not in the area.
What security are they talking about?
Nobody in the area wants them.
China isn't in the area - but they soon will be.
@@davidjordan9759 not sure, brah. But the fact US running away from Afghan seems like proving my point better
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
@iRyannity Res 2065 U.N
The Question of the Malvinas Islands, understood as the sovereignty dispute between the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia, South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime spaces, has its origin on January 3, 1833 when the The United Kingdom, breaking the Argentine territorial integrity, illegally occupied the islands and expelled the Argentine authorities, preventing their return as well as the settlement of Argentines from the continental territory. Since then, Argentina has regularly protested the British occupation, ratifying its sovereignty and affirming that its recovery, in accordance with international law, constitutes a permanent and inalienable objective. The Malvinas Question has been classified by the United Nations as a case of special and particular colonial decolonization, where there is an underlying sovereignty dispute and therefore, unlike traditional colonial cases, the principle of self-determination of peoples is not applicable. On December 16, 1965, the General Assembly adopted resolution 2065 (XX), through which it recognized the existence of a sovereignty dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom and invited both countries to enter into negotiations to find a solution. peaceful and definitive to the controversy, taking into account the interests of the inhabitants of the islands. Since then, more than 40 resolutions of the General Assembly and the Special Committee on Decolonization have reiterated this call. In addition to the successive resolutions of the General Assembly and the treatment of the Question in the Decolonization Committee, Argentina has the firm support of the Latin American countries for their legitimate sovereign rights over the Malvinas, South Georgia and Sandwich Islands. of the South and the surrounding maritime spaces, and the call for the resumption of negotiations is shared by the Organization of American States, the G77 plus China, and other multilateral and regional forums.
@iRyannity Duke of Wellington, Prime Minister in 1834: "I have reviewed all the papers relating to the Falklands. By no means do I find it clear that we have ever held sovereignty over the Falklands." On the other hand, UK after the 1968 memorandum of understanding proposed a condominium between both countries but was frustrated by the Death of Perón (1974) ... chronologically a plate does not give right and everything Spanish in America by utti possidetis iuris is of the Americans but in the Falklands there were Argentines and for many decades before the military invasion expulsion of inhabitants ... I gave him two estoppel.
@iRyannity my friend exceeds arguments and you should know them.The international organizations were understood
@iRyannity neither you nor i only the un will have the last word.There is a chronology...
Thanks to you I've learned that my country is not alone in this struggle in which the uk interferes with the territorial integrity and has illegally expelled inhabitants and implanted british people (military personnel -accepted immigrants and created military bases. It's crazy and the rest of the world can't understand how bad it is...cause they don't have to face threats and danger.
Self determination is a very important right. But it is crazy to believe that a group of people can determine borders because that right has effects only on themselves... they can righteously opt to be british... but the land is a completely different debate. There're britons living all around the world... following the alleged idea that they can decide that every land they step foot on.. is british, then the whole world would be Britain.. which of course is not the case at all.
Self determination (when speaking about implanted populations from a few generations ago) should only provide them with the nationality they desire and live as emigrants in foreign land just like millions across the world who leave their country to live in another but keeping their papers.
Territorial integrity is key... Chagos has little to nothing to do with britain.
Where are you from?
Where are you from?
Why does Donald Trump never been to Diego Garcia or speak on this topic
Good question. I assume most US presidents have never been there. And I don’t think any of them really like drawing attention to it unless necessary.
=because he is Donald Trump. it answer just about all questions about Donald Trump
Who is Donald Dump?
Who is Donald dump
@@mmemilo4455 He's a cousin of Donald Duck.
To the uninitiated, it may seem a little odd that the Islands are now deemed to belong to Mauritius, just because colonial brits decided to base the administration of the islands in Port Lois a hundred years or so ago. Why does the U.N and the I.C.J. not let the Islanders determine what they want? Those deported to Mauritius will presumably not have wished to live as outsiders in a hindu dominated country. Did they choose to be Mauritian nationals? Where is the right to self determination here?. Hopefully there will not be some sort of repeat of the west new Guinea dispute on a small scale!. Does International law represent the will of those that are subject to rulings or `advisories'?. Why does the U.K. then not give the Chagossians an option similar to that given to Mayotte in the Comoro islands by the French?. Could this be a case of the law being an ass?. Another aspect that may influence any outcome is the likelyhood that many of those that identify as Chagossian have never seen Chagos and may not prefer to live on small remote islands at all!. I believe less than two thousand were shamefully evicted all those years ago. Today there are around ten thousand that identify as Chagossian. Would they all want to return to the homeland of their ancestors? With rising sea levels, the attractiveness of living on small remote islands is surely not what it may once have been. What I find remarkable is that the development of the military base on Diego garcia was partly due to conservationists. Julian Huxley (among others) opposed the use of Aldabra due to it's importance as a nature reserve. The conservation of the islanders on Chagos, it appears, was seen as less important. Today conservation of our natural heritage seems more important than ever!. Aldabra is still a protected site today. Similarly, the marine protected area around Chagos is very important. An estimated 90% of species in the charge of the U.K. dwell in the waters around Chagos. Try telling the British public today that Boris intends to give up 90% of creatures in British charge!. Please take a look at the youtube contribution by the Chagos conservation trust. Is this where the real priority should lie?.
Well, Mauritius is a multi- cultural island.
The chagossians have been living on mauritius since their expulsion in 1971.
@@Someone-vq4xcPlease pardon my delayed reply!.The information on the whole sad affair that I have been able to access leaves the impression that the Chagos islanders and their decendants live a largely segregated life on Mauritius. While modern societies are based on inclusion and equality, reality is often on an entirely different planet. We all know that the best intentions are all to often stymied by the real world. This is why I believe that the status of the islanders as nationals of Mauritius is arbtitrary and a false construction. In International law the preservation of the title to territory overrides the right of self determination (jus cogens) which leaves the islanders in an unenviable situation after the Icj advisory.(not that most would ever be likely to return there!) I believe that the current status of Chagos preserves a most important natural marine habitat the size of France in the middle of the Indian ocean, and I would like to see a world heritage site status given to the whole area. At the moment, it is only due to the military presence on Diego Garcia that the natural treasure of Chagos can be defended and preserved.
@@baronvonklik7159 chagos are for chagossian and UK should return it to it's idigigsnous people.
A British Saying that chagos ecosystems should be protected sound a bit hypocritical because today only 17% of Mauritius is covered by forest. These colonisers deforested Mauritius for sugar plantation they destroyed Mauritius beauty.
@@parveshramjutton7568 Thank you for your reply. While it is true that those responsible for the destruction of the original forest and wildlife on Mauritius were indeed the colonial French and British, the world has since moved on. Few civilised folks of the modern era would now support the sort of behaviour that our ancestors considered normal!. I can confidently assume that this would also apply to the people of Mauritius. It is perhaps a luxury of developed nations that we now recognize the value of the natural world, and are no longer forced to disregard nature to further our interests. Please accept that we, today, are not the same as our ancestors. The Chagos islands were retained by the U.K. for strategic reasons, a military presence in the Indian ocean by "the west" is still considered important. Perhaps you should consider this presence an element to guarantee world stability which could also be in the interest of the people of Mauritius. The Chagos islands had a small population of contract workers employed by the Chagos Agalega company based in Mahe´, Seychelles. Some had lived there with their families for generations, but they were not "indignious", the islands were originally unpopulated. Nevertheless, the manner in which these people were removed was shameful, and cannot be defended. These islanders had little connection to Mauritius, and some now live in the U.K. (Mainly decendants) The people that now call themselves Chagossians are largely folks that have never lived on these remote islands, and are unlikely to be able to exist there without massive support from outside. I also doubt that the younger Chagossians would prefer to live their lives on small remote islands nowadays. Please support the concept of keeping Chagos as a protected area, as this is certainly the most important feature of Chagos. The natural treasure of Chagos can currently only be guaranteed by the military presence as far as I can see.
@@baronvonklik7159 I agree that most of the new generation of European are not like there ancestors but will stand that chagos should be return to chagossian. sorry if it sounded rude it was not my intention.
2) it's not like chagoss are being handed to a poor country of Africa. Mauritius is a well developed country I guess chagoswis not going i in the wrong hand. Mauritians are echo friendly people probably closer to chagos than UK as it is located in Indian Ocean it take better care of chagos.
Mauritius have other islands as well saint Brandon, rodrigue their natural beauty are intact untouched. U saying that Mauritius wont be able to conserve the beauty of chagos when it is already handling 4 paradise islands namely mauritius, rodrigue saint Brandon and agalega. 🙂
3) through this logic tomorrow British might tommorrow reclaim Mauritius and Seychelles and deport the population to India not to forget the ancestors of theese countries were contracted workers.
4) Maybe the folk claiming to be chagossian never lived in chagos but we must not forget it's their heritage. That land were the former home of their ancestors so it's their right to fight for it.
From a real politik standpoint there is little chance to get it back. I wouldn't give it back only for the Chinese to buy it outright with a belt and road type "investment." Sorry not sorry. Compensation is completely appropriate. Finally How far back retroactively are we going to apply international law to current polities? There would be endless instability and claims.
How come the US and UK are not sanctioned and be accountable for this injustice?!
You may also want see this interview on the same topic: ua-cam.com/video/IcvFLHU9qJM/v-deo.html
How go India UNSC member permanently? Please You tell me Answer and who is here against this matter.
Why India should not be part of UNSC member ????Even if I don’t like India,we cannot deny that India will become a powerful nation in few decades and its economic and military influence will be felt across the globe just like china. I believe that to maintain global peace,powerful countries need to cooperate and resolve through diplomatic means.we are heading towards multi polar world because many developing countries are becoming powerful economically and militarily.The world is no more Eurocentric nowadays and economic influence is shifting towards Asia
As opposed to them legal colonies? 😄
Haha! Nice try. By the way, keep an eye out for this week’s video. I’m covering another similar case. But this time it’s France that’s in the bad books! :-)
Thats my uneducated thinking.
I love the EU flag behind you it speaks volumes.
You do have to wonder if there wasn’t a huge US base would the Mauritius islands really give a fig.
I do though agree with you in saying how this could give an indication of the dwindling influence the U.K. and USA have in the world, it could also indicate the dwindling interest the US has in the UN.
For all the noise the islands will not be given to Mauritius as soon afterwards there would be a Chinese base built on it.
Interesting that everyone notices the flag. I’ve never hidden my views on this. The amusing thing is that over my right shoulder is a One Pound Note - as great a symbol of Britishness as one could find. In fact, as a bit of history, it is from the First World War and bears the signature of my great-grandfather, who was Permanent Secretary of the Treasury and the government’s chief financial advisor at the time. So, it seems that Brexiters certainly aren’t the only ones with a claim to authentic Britishness! :-) On Chagos, I do think that Mauritius genuinely wants the territory back. Few countries like to lose land. (Here another video I did on this very subject ua-cam.com/video/M5-8Vtogy3M/v-deo.html) But I also think you’re right about the extra incentive for taking back control of the islands. Financial gain often drives these things.
James Ker-Lindsay good answer, I am not that fussed either way with Brexit, it is poor of me to make assumptions about the sort of people who have European flags.
We actually had a huge debate about this at work about 4 months ago, it extended to chicken tikka masala, we have a cosmopolitan environment, the group included 2 people from Mauritius, 1 Indian, one Indian who was born and raised in Abu Dhabi and has been to India 6 times, an Emirati and finally me. The point came down after all the arguing about Alaska and Kashmir and the Andaman Islands, via Gibraltar and the Falklands, that the two from Mauritius wouldn’t want the Chagos islands if they didn’t get the money from Diego Garcia, had to repay the U.K. the money paid for the islands and had to ensure it was sufficiently protected without external help from the like of China, ie if it was a burden to them.
I live in Abu Dhabi, hence the conversation.
If you want interesting future topics the Trucial states would be excellent with the changing state of the UAE. Or the mentioned Andaman Islands
@@MrJudgementday99 Diego Garcia had an indigenous population that got evicted to Mauritius and so forth
@@reazallykhan they were ha-pay to take the money in the 1970’s. Funny how it changes when you build a navel base there. Gosh anyone could be cynical and think they are only in it for the money
Better return to the people of chagos under Mauritian administration.. This is illegal but its not surprise as britain does this for years in my countries
sealand. Acoundtry
Am mauritian this land is for chagossian.
Decolonisation never fully happned return Mauritius its land plzzz.
Chagos Islands is a very upsetting subject because the Indian Ocean is where the slave trade took place.
I'm not sure why UK and America tell this story about West African slavery that did not really occur.
The African slaves were described as being the Pagans (Nword, Tri Racial Aboriginals, Blacks).
Also, the Dutch documented that they ordered the enslavement of Pagans and not Africans because they were highly diverse of all colors (Coloreds).
At the time Austronesians were called Senegalese but they are 100% Indians.
Hence the reason why the words Mother, Indien, Mor, Black, N word, Pagans... Are all the same words in various Proto Indo languages.
Well we know where this guy's loyalties lie. Not a Union Jack in sight.
And your point?
I really don’t need to be lectured on my loyalties. If you look over my left right shoulder, I actually have a framed One Pound note. A note signed by my great grandfather, the permanent secretary of the treasury and the government’s chief financial advisor during World War One.
And if you think that questioning Britain’s position on international law is unpatriotic, then I have to say that you have a very warped view of the values that this country should stand for!
Indeed, the fact that waving a flag is the definition of a good Brit in the minds of many people these days, rather than upholding real British values, largely explains why this country is now in the mess that it is!
@@JamesKerLindsay Amen ! Thank you for the Post and Enlightening the world !!
TOTAL BS the islands were not occupied by anybody when they were discovered. So how can they be colonised. Stop the rubbish talk
A truly idiotic comment. Well done. 👏
@@JamesKerLindsay not totally idiotic. They were uninhabited, until the French created plantations. The ownership of the plantations passed through several companies, until the British bought those companies, shortly before creating BIOT. So the UK could be said to be the legal land owners. If the international courts decide that the Chagossians should have ownership, then surely they deserve all income from leased out land. Therefore all the rent the US pays for its military base should be paid directly to the Chagossians. That is the only moral outcome. Did any of the international courts, or British and Mauritian governments ever consult the Chagossians? If there is any substantial money involved, experience shows it will primarily end in up in one particular place, the lawyers pockets.