The really weird thing about this is that it seems that the UK and Mauritian governments didn't consult with the residents of Chagos at least if some Chagosean organisations are to be believed. So we're possibly in the situation where the Republicans may be right, but completely by accident and for the wrong reasons
The residents aren't natives. The uk expelled all the locals in the 60s. They mostly moved to Mauritius. This was at the same time as the us came in wanting a base. Ofc the residents now would favor the uk, they're literally from there. The originals were the descendants of the slaves.
There were no natives it was unihabited until France came along, who then gave it to the UK as part of the Paris Treaty. Who would they consult? Even the people left behind by the British haven't been there for 80 years.
@@brettyates7054no one lives there permanently at the moment or since the 1960s when the British started expelling the chagossians, it is currently only inhabited by the military staff who run the base at Diego Garcia, who are all on temporary assignments. Even the lease on the base itself is temporary in theory.
The argument that Mauritius sold the islands to the UK under duress is such utterly pathetic nonsense. Mauritius’ first Prime Minister, Seewoosagur Ramgoolam, who had led Mauritian independence and signed the 1965 agreement selling the islands, repeatedly spoke of how good it was that Mauritius was rid of the Chagos, how they’d never been Mauritian and Mauritius had absolutely no use for or connection to them
And the argument that you should keep just to preserve your hegemony is also bs. Which is why you always try to avoid saying that, but we all know the real reason is that. Their strategic value is only reason you care.
People seem to forget that before Europeans found the indian ocean islands of Mauritius they were literally uninhabited. The idea of a 'native people' to the region being the population of Mauritians which are basically an artificial implant to the region by European powers back in the day is silly. If anything French have the OG claim to it all.
@@scarletcrusade77yes but they have been inhabited since the 1700s, primarily by the descendants of slaves brought to the islands by force. Those slaves descendants were living on these islands for 200 years before they were kicked out in the 1960s. Your argument is like saying polynesians are not native to their islands because they came from somewhere else. If that’s the approach you want to take then no one belongs where they are today.
So the islands were French, then British, then the Brits gave Mauritius independence and paid for the Chagos Islands. Now they're giving them to Mauritius who they never belonged to and paying Mauritius for them, AGAIN. There is no common sense anymore
They've belonged to Mauritius ever since it gained (not given) independence. The uk doesn't own them, as the UN itself has insisted, it just leases them. Part of the deal also lets the original folk there, who were expelled by the uk in the 60s, to return. Those folk are mostly in Mauritius now.
@ArawnOfAnnwn so the UK and Mauritius agreed to a lease deal which at the time they wanted, they now want them back, have gone to an international court which they knew would favour them in order to get out of a binding agreement. On top of all of that are then getting paid once again. Think a bit of backbone is needed
Who the fuck cares? Like you had such a HUGE vested interest in these islands before any of this happened. Or like any of it matters to you or your personal life now in any way.
@@ArawnOfAnnwn So it was French for 20 years 1793 then given to the UK in 1814 and it was British till 1960 for about 150 years, then Mauritius was given independence in 1960 so then we bought the Islands in 1964 and kicked out the "locals" and run it for another 60 years. So ownership by time the UK has over 200 years, France in second with 20 years and Mauritius in last with 4 whole years, yet they are claiming to be "native". Not a chance.
Colonial powers made in inhabited (with slaves) and then administered it for centuries. So, yeah, it was uninhabited until colonial powers moved people in.
@@cuatez2yeah, and Britain liberated them from those ‘colonial powers’. That and the people who live there TODAY, the ancestors of those slaves… who apparently don’t get a say, don’t want to be ‘decolonised’. So what exactly are you arguing in favour of?
Mauritius’ claim is FAR more shaky than the UK. The Chagos were entirely uninhabited until the 1790s. The only reason Mauritius has any claim was because the UK lumped the islands together with Mauritius as a single colony for convenience. There was no other relationship between the islands and most Chagossians vehemently oppose becoming Mauritian.
@@LordDim1stop with this cope crap. Both claims are shaky, sure, but yours is far worse. You are literally thousands and thousands of miles away from this place, and really shouldn’t have been there at all in the first place. It is a remnant and stain of your colonial past. The fact that Mauritius is at least the closest country to it instantly makes its claim a little more reliable than yours. Keep coping.
@@mnm5165 Proximity is universally recognised (except by states such as Argentina and Russia, funny that) as entirely irrelevant when it comes to territorial claims. Mauritius being close makes their claim precisely 0% more valid. The Chagos were uninhabited before settled by the French, who legally ceded the islands to the UK under the 1814 Treaty of Paris. Britain’s claim to the islands is rock solid, Mauritius’ is next to nonexistent.
@@SaintGerbilUKDid you watch the video? It was the conservatives plan to sell it. They just never managed to because they were spending all their time destroying the country
i cant tell you how sick i am of the constant speculation everyone's doing on what trumps going to do next hes highly unpredictable just wait and see what he actually does
@@BoraCM Expulsion to build a US military base? Some Pacific Islanders (Marshall, Micronesia, Palau) are in Free Association with the US, allowing them to more easily live and work in the US, in exchange for US military bases in their islands. This could be expanded to include an independent Chagos as well.
What about the US making Mauritius as a close ally, creating a close relationship with them? The US needs closer ties to African nations anyway to counter Chinese influence.
Well I think the simple fact that Mauritius is 50x closer to them helps their case a little bit over the UK’s 😂 to be honest, you guys had no business being on our side of the world in the first place.
@@bababababababa6124 Argentina tried the exact same argument with the Falklands and the argument was thrown out by the UN. Let the people who actually live there decide their own fate.
Let's be honest, would you be comfortable if another state ie Egypt Kenya, China or some other country across the way holding some thin strip of land off the British coast on the north sea for military purposes? Or whichever country your hail from. I get why people are unhappy, but I can see both sides of this.
Absolutely amazing and incredibly telling that the people actually living on the Chagos islands factor into no one’s justification for handing the islands back against their will.
If he does block it then good Mauritius has no claim to the territory france has a far more valid claim to the islands than Mauritius and Mauritius has close links to China so giving it up is also a massive strategic mistake for the uk
@@gecttakhla4249 Yes but if Mauritius has close links to China and owns the other ex british indian ocean islands around the base then they can send civilian contractor spies to basically be super close to the base and gain free intel on this secretive based quite easily.
I am guessing it would stabilise the east a bit more if they made the Americans remove thier base and just sold back all the islands, as the US has caused enough problems round the world
Absolutely abysmal deal by Starmer. Literally dealing yourself a major reputation blow with nothing gained at all except appeasing people who will only be happy when you no longer exist as a country.
Obviously, Mauritius has no substantiated claim on Chagos. Not just Chagos is so distant from Mauritius that they never were there, you specifically mentioned that France had established the first population there. Ceding Mauritius and Chagos (and other territories) to Britain does not make Chagos a part of Mauritius, even if France administered Chagos from a Mauritius-based Governor or sth like that. Simple as that. Or you left out some necessary detail(s).
That population now lives in Mauritius, as the uk expelled them in the 60s. And part of the deal allows them back to resettle it. And Mauritius does have a claim - literally the UN recognized it.
@@ArawnOfAnnwn So it was French for 20 years 1793 then given to the UK in 1814 and it was British till 1960 for about 150 years, then Mauritius was given independence in 1960 so then we bought the Islands in 1964 and kicked out the "locals" and run it for another 60 years. So ownership by time the UK has over 200 years, France in second with 20 years and Mauritius in last with 4 whole years, yet they are claiming to be "native". Not a chance.
This "deal" allows for kickbacks of a prestine nature reserve to the Mauritian government, a government which is already famous for overfishing and pollution!
Here we go, now we have people trying to force reasons as to why Mauritius shouldn’t have these islands. Is “overfishing” seriously the best you could come up with? 😂 as if every country under the sun doesn’t do that already? Give me a break, just give up your pointless island and stop whining.
It is odd that this is something that want to push through right at the end of their presidency. Worrying about China's military presence in region is completely valid given the amount it's already expanded in the Indian Ocean. It is pretty crazy that we did it all within many people's living memory.
There are none there. The chagossians were expelled to Mauritius by the uk in the 60s. So Mauritius has the largest number of chagossians seeking repatriation now. Part of the deal lets them resettle it again. The people there aren't chagossian, they're there cos of the base there.
@@ArawnOfAnnwn They are more chagossian than the people claiming to be there at least they have lived there for more than a few years. The time between Mauritius being given independence and Britain buying Chagos was only 4 years; you can't claim to be "native" in just 4 years.
I believe Chagos was ceded to Britain by the French. One thing is certain, the islands were completely uninhabited. The Grench brought workers from Mauritius to farm coconuts. Giving it away to a country rhat has no historical claim to it is insane considering the Chinese would turn up in Mauritius and explain to the Government how wonderful it would be for them to 'rent' it.
The only part that matters is that they were administered by Mauritius, just before Mauritius was decolonised. The UK was a signatory to the UN treaty on decolonisation, saying that they wouldn't divide up colonies when they became independent. That's the only justification. It's a legal claim, not a moral or historical claim (and to be fair, it's the only one that matters). If the Chagos has still been run from the Seychelles, then Mauritius would have no claim. It would be the Seychelles making this argument. Alternatively, if the islands had been separated before the treaty was signed, the UK would have no legally contested ownership of the islands (though moral, geographical and historical claims could have been made and likely rejected).
@@solsunman383to add onto what you said, the chagossians were also expelled to Mauritius when the UK government kicked them out. So Mauritius has the largest number of chagossians seeking repatriation to my knowledge
@@solsunman383 Thank you for an insightful comment! However, I do personally feel the argument is quite weak, since the only administered it for the UK, and didn't own it. But it may be legally accurate.
At best Mauritius was decolonised in 1960 and Chagos was sold in 1964. They are more French at least they were there for 20 years. How exactly do you decolonize a previously uninhabited island anyway?
If the UK does give away its islands then we might as well hand Argentina the Falklands and Gibraltar to Spain. Give one thing away everyone else will ask for the same.
Nobody lives on Chagos except 4000+ US military personnel and a small number of UK administrators vs places UK citizens live and have done so for centuries ... not really similar in any way
We didn't choose Brexit just for the USA to take the EU's place in forcing us to act for their benefit. We should probably keep the islands, but the USA has nothing to do with it unless they're proposing to _buy_ the islands from us themselves. They currently use the land with our permission. The USA will have to get permission from whoever ends up owning the islands either way.
The current official administrative name for them is the British Indian Ocean territory. They're not especially well known because they're very remote and almost entirely an American military base so travel to them is restricted.
I'm sure there are many places like that. Places that are unknown to the general public but still are somehow every important to diplomacy in a very sort of bureaucratic and boring way.
Neither has Trump, so why would he block anything? He doesn't have a clue and neither does his cabinet. People need to stop treating them as a functional government.
Ironic considering their main complaint when it came to Brexit was that a "foreign government" was telling the UK what to do, and now that is the exact strategy they are attempting themselves.
This is so funny. I don't know why we call it a special relationship, we're clearly the dog doing as our master says. They say give up the island and Starmer yields, they say don't give up the island and Starmer will yield 😂😂😂
One country is the strongest in the world the other has starmer who just weakened the uks defence budget by 500 million . For once trump should stamp his foot down
That would be absolute insanity and would never happen. Doing that would absolutely destroy US-UK relations and western defence capabilities not just in the region but worldwide. Diego Garcia is crucial to western defence and there are no circumstances where the base will be surrendered to Mauritius. This deal was bonkers and terrible anyway, Trump would for once do a rare good thing in blocking it. The vast majority of Chagossians are furious at the deal and have been entirely excluded.
@@LordDim1 They'd still have better luck under a system where they only have to deal with the Mauritian government than a situation where they had to deal with Mauritian, American and British interests at once. It's not like Britain was involved out of a deep moral concern for the plight of the Chagossians and only wanted to retain control for their sake, after all. If that was the case they would've involved Chagossians in the negotiations. So this would still be a step backwards for them.
@@LordDim1 I don't think you understand the gravity of what is happening in the world right now. The axis is forming and the us is being bitchy.... UK, USA relations might just spontaneously combust.
@@Talisguy One of the main reasons Chagossians were excluded from the negotiation process is that Chagossians by-and-large want to remain British, so including them in the negotiations would have torpedoed efforts to hand the islands over. Mauritius is very close politically to China and has been known to reneg on its international agreements. The US would in no way have “more luck” dealing just with Mauritius, an unreliable non-ally, than currently where it only deals with the UK.
@@LordDim1 Diego Garcia has nothing to do with 'defence', but offense. At least admit to their hegemonic purpose. They're literally continents away from both the uk and us.
@@adam7802There is nothing wrong with this deal. It allows the islanders to return home, a home they were forcibly expelled from and their pets killed by the British government, and it allows UK and the US to keep a very strategically important military base.
Sounds to me that the tories had done a prettt good job stalling it and it was starmer weakness that allowed the Biden administration to force him to rush it through before his term was up. Seems foolish to not have played for time until we at least knew who the next president would be
He says, "The US could lose their military base on Diego Garcia" ......and I spontaneously break out into laughter. Oh yeah, that could definitely happen. 🙄 LMAO
The comments over here are so callous. Mauritius might not be a threat, but it's people and it's nation are a part of humanity and the international union. Forcefully/Illegally acquired territory is bad in Ukraine or Hong Kong/Taiwan, but it is good in Mauritius? If it's Russia or China, then rules apply, but once it's US or UK then rules should be abandoned. Truly saddening to see this idea of "Rules for thee, but not for me"
If it was China or Russia do u think they would have gone through the effort of paying for the islands?😂 yes Mauritius didn’t have the negotiating power for such a deal at the time, but the fact the U.K. went through the effort to pay for them at all shows there is far less malice in their actions than any of the regimes you refer to
First I want to say, that I agree that acquiring a territory forcefully/Illegally is bad. But imho you can't realy compare these 3 cases. One is an agreement between 2 countries, that they get an island for money. Some years later they found out, that some terms in the contract were illegal. The second is an invasion and lots of killing of soldiers and civilians. The third is a deal between countries, which seems to be valid. But one country thinks, thats not fast enought and tries to find faster ways. At least thats how I understood these in simple terms. Correct me if I am wrong. Like I said, I think every case is bad, but on different levels.
I hope so. It's frankly embarrassing that a foreign nation needs to do things that are in our best interests - but the Labour government is completely inept.
Let's hope he does. The UK has dipped so much. Americans now have to keep the sun from setting even further. What am I even talking about? The sun has set for Britain.
It's a shame people don't realise that being the most moral and nice country in the world means nothing because no one actually important cares. Geopolitical suicide just to appease those which hate this country regardless. It is insane.
I find it funny how the likes of Farage claimed to be champions of sovereignty when it came to Brexit. but when it comes to another country wanting its country wanting sovereignty from the uk n us
You could not be further from the truth. The people want to stay under British administration, or atleast NOT under Mauritius' administration. Mauritius has no claim, and the people themself want to be linked to Britain.
@@WartyFingleBlaster That's the standard speculation used to defend your hegemony. How convenient. There's been no shortage of war anyway, and the most prolific one to wage is you. Literally the record for most since ww2. It's just an excuse used to justify and defend your control.
@@ChronicTheHempHog-mf3nh thats because the people who were pro unification with Mauritius were quite literally forced out, the Mauritius never "owned" the chagos because the British deliberately split it away from them before granting them independence. Pretty much every international legal expert on the case has sided with the Mauritius claim that Chagos is a colonial territory. Of course many of the modern day residents dont want to leave but that doesnt change the fact that many residents who did live there and were forced out by UK mandate and their children do want Chagos decolonised. You cant steal some ones house, force them out onto the street and then claim "every person living in this house wants me to stay the owner"
@@ChronicTheHempHog-mf3nh the Chagossians aren't happy because they're still not being allowed to return. At least with Mauritius there's a chance their descendants might return in the future, with the UK there was none
We get nothing out of keeping it but a bad reputation. It's America that has stuff to lose. Sounds to me like farage is more pro US than he is British. I mean, he does spend more time there than at home in the UK, or his own constituency.
if stammer started this whole affair knowing that it would be blocked, that would have been a very politacally cunning plan, but I don't think he's that clever
Sorry.... can you repeat that? Legal experts who worked with farage during the brexit campaign? The one with all the dodgey data mining, misuse of funds, and foreign intanglements? Some frothing at the mouth gammon with my first fisher price lawyer bag? Those legal experts? 😅
@SDDT24 so, lawyers advising their clients they can get away with spreading misinformation doesn’t bother you? Fair enough I suppose. You crack on mate
@@eversor10 how so? the British specifically split it off to avoid giving it to the Mauritius and expelled residents to ensure that their ownership of the islands wasnt contested. every single international legal expert on the matter agrees with the Mauritius claim to the territory and the ICJ has ruled that the british claim is invalid, so mr youtube commenter please tell me what information you have that is so much better informed then the people whose entire job it is to study and determine these things
It’s so embarrassing that we require a foreign government to pressure our own leaders to act in the interest of the British people. I sincerely hope it’s true that starmer government only did this under pressure from Biden (probably the most anti U.K. president for many years), however, if that’s the case I’m concerned about the governments lack of foresight at the possibility of a administration change in the US. If any deal like this was as a result of pressure under Biden, it seems the most logical thing would have been to delay it until you knew who the next President was going to be in order to avoid any international awkwardness
I’m confused, how is holding on to a random atoll on the complete other side of the world “in the interest of your people” 😂? I doubt most of your “people” in Britain have ever even heard of the Chagos Islands or Diego Garcia. You probably didn’t either before this whole situation. Your country had no business and no right being there in the first place. We get it, you’re sad about your empire withering away, but just give it up okay?
@@bababababababa6124 The Chagos Islands, specifically Diego Garcia, is one of the most strategically vital pieces of land in the world. Control of the Chagos essentially grants control of the Indian Ocean. It’s a vital strategic defence asset. The UK has more rights than anyone else to the islands considering they were entirely unoccupied. The only “claim” Mauritius has ever had to them is that the UK placed the islands under the administration of Mauritius colony because it was the closest major colony.
@ no I’ve known of the chagos islands for many many years. I paid a lot of attention to their chagosian protests demanding apologies from the U.K. government for the method of their deportation and the U.K. government allowing them the right to become U.K. citizens. The chagosian people (many of which are U.K. citizens) do not want to be Mauritian, they see themselves as chagosian or (some of them) British. Mauritius make it illegal to identify as chagocian and have an awful reputation for overfishing and pollution. If this was a deal to grant chagos it’s independence, I’d at least slightly agree with it more (however with such a small population and no infrastructure other than a military base on the island, such a deal would take many years to reintroduce the people back onto the island and create the infrastructure around them that would allow for self governance). The idea of handing islands to Mauritius, that have never belonged to Mauritius and have been inhabited by a people who do not wish to be Mauritian, is absurd. Then the reason it’s not in the interest of the British people is because it has absolutely 0 benefit for the British people and jeopardises our ability to project power and influence in the far east
I think it’s a very tragic truth that Diego Garcia was home to natives, but it is one of the most strategic points in the world. It is more valuable to the outside world than the Chargosseans.
Did 23 hour ban on one tablet Jeffrey Taylor yes this one. He get technology skills Thomas. Used Google talk to report him you tube Validation Art Bezrukavenko and Pietro Boselli Italian told me to do it.
@@blazeentertainmen100Well most people don’t understand geopolitics. Fortunately I do, and I assure you, if the common man did aswell, they’d give up this woke fantasy of “decolonisation”.
You can ensure Trump will let it go through, and it's not very complicated. Buy 500 of his $10k watches, and rent a room in his Trump Tower in New York for the going rate of $5,000,000/night
Can anyone do it no skills on technology and IT Thomas. He super rich yes. Did pc Game Titanic 1996 £25 for PC bought 1997 Clydebank Scotland Britain. Film Titanic Leonardo di Caperio and Kate Winslet he Irish catholic it excellent film.
i understand why USA needs a base in Indian ocean but it should not come under expense of native chagossians being driven out of their home maybe they could find another uninhabited place to build their air base
The really weird thing about this is that it seems that the UK and Mauritian governments didn't consult with the residents of Chagos at least if some Chagosean organisations are to be believed.
So we're possibly in the situation where the Republicans may be right, but completely by accident and for the wrong reasons
The residents aren't natives. The uk expelled all the locals in the 60s. They mostly moved to Mauritius. This was at the same time as the us came in wanting a base. Ofc the residents now would favor the uk, they're literally from there. The originals were the descendants of the slaves.
There were no natives it was unihabited until France came along, who then gave it to the UK as part of the Paris Treaty.
Who would they consult?
Even the people left behind by the British haven't been there for 80 years.
You are clearly hypocritic.
@@ArawnOfAnnwnsoooo you want to expel people who live there for people who never did? Empathy🙌🏻
@@brettyates7054no one lives there permanently at the moment or since the 1960s when the British started expelling the chagossians, it is currently only inhabited by the military staff who run the base at Diego Garcia, who are all on temporary assignments. Even the lease on the base itself is temporary in theory.
The argument that Mauritius sold the islands to the UK under duress is such utterly pathetic nonsense. Mauritius’ first Prime Minister, Seewoosagur Ramgoolam, who had led Mauritian independence and signed the 1965 agreement selling the islands, repeatedly spoke of how good it was that Mauritius was rid of the Chagos, how they’d never been Mauritian and Mauritius had absolutely no use for or connection to them
He was the one who closed the Mauritian rail network down.
@@TheHoveHeretic and?
And the argument that you should keep just to preserve your hegemony is also bs. Which is why you always try to avoid saying that, but we all know the real reason is that. Their strategic value is only reason you care.
A good way of saving face when humiliated + it only matters what the islanders feel and no one else anyway. It is not really any body else's business.
All politicians say the deal they personally created was good, excellent, the best. When have you ever heard them say anything else?
It’s not handing back Chagos as Mauritius never has administered the islands.
People seem to forget that before Europeans found the indian ocean islands of Mauritius they were literally uninhabited. The idea of a 'native people' to the region being the population of Mauritians which are basically an artificial implant to the region by European powers back in the day is silly. If anything French have the OG claim to it all.
@@scarletcrusade77yes but they have been inhabited since the 1700s, primarily by the descendants of slaves brought to the islands by force. Those slaves descendants were living on these islands for 200 years before they were kicked out in the 1960s. Your argument is like saying polynesians are not native to their islands because they came from somewhere else. If that’s the approach you want to take then no one belongs where they are today.
@@scarletcrusade77 Chagossians can trace their ancestry back to 1783. British Falkland islanders to 1834. Mauritius was a French colony.
@@scarletcrusade77 By your reckoning the Falkland Islands should also be French they established a naval base on east Falklands in 1764?
@@scarletcrusade77 What? Like when you all came over to Britain?
Britain do not give up the Indian Ocean Territories please!
So the islands were French, then British, then the Brits gave Mauritius independence and paid for the Chagos Islands. Now they're giving them to Mauritius who they never belonged to and paying Mauritius for them, AGAIN. There is no common sense anymore
They've belonged to Mauritius ever since it gained (not given) independence. The uk doesn't own them, as the UN itself has insisted, it just leases them. Part of the deal also lets the original folk there, who were expelled by the uk in the 60s, to return. Those folk are mostly in Mauritius now.
@ArawnOfAnnwn so the UK and Mauritius agreed to a lease deal which at the time they wanted, they now want them back, have gone to an international court which they knew would favour them in order to get out of a binding agreement. On top of all of that are then getting paid once again. Think a bit of backbone is needed
@@ArawnOfAnnwnthe UN can take a hike
Who the fuck cares? Like you had such a HUGE vested interest in these islands before any of this happened. Or like any of it matters to you or your personal life now in any way.
@@ArawnOfAnnwn So it was French for 20 years 1793 then given to the UK in 1814 and it was British till 1960 for about 150 years, then Mauritius was given independence in 1960 so then we bought the Islands in 1964 and kicked out the "locals" and run it for another 60 years.
So ownership by time the UK has over 200 years, France in second with 20 years and Mauritius in last with 4 whole years, yet they are claiming to be "native".
Not a chance.
The idea that UK needs to “decolonize” what was an uninhabited island is crazy.
Colonial powers made in inhabited (with slaves) and then administered it for centuries. So, yeah, it was uninhabited until colonial powers moved people in.
The islands had inhabitants, but they were forcefully kicked out.
@@cuatez2yeah, and Britain liberated them from those ‘colonial powers’. That and the people who live there TODAY, the ancestors of those slaves… who apparently don’t get a say, don’t want to be ‘decolonised’.
So what exactly are you arguing in favour of?
@@brettyates7054
LOL.
Delusional to say the least, Britain was just another colonial overlord to those people.
When we took control, it was inhabited? The original heritage of the Chagosians is now lost, this is all they have.
I swear if that idiot ruins one of the few good decisions the UK has made recently I'm going to scream
So Mauritius' claim on the island is about as shaky as UK's?
Mauritius’ claim is FAR more shaky than the UK. The Chagos were entirely uninhabited until the 1790s. The only reason Mauritius has any claim was because the UK lumped the islands together with Mauritius as a single colony for convenience. There was no other relationship between the islands and most Chagossians vehemently oppose becoming Mauritian.
@@LordDim1stop with this cope crap. Both claims are shaky, sure, but yours is far worse. You are literally thousands and thousands of miles away from this place, and really shouldn’t have been there at all in the first place. It is a remnant and stain of your colonial past. The fact that Mauritius is at least the closest country to it instantly makes its claim a little more reliable than yours. Keep coping.
@@mnm5165Oh yeah proximity funny certain Argentinian and Russian dictators might like that argument. What a moronic argument.
@@mnm5165 Proximity is universally recognised (except by states such as Argentina and Russia, funny that) as entirely irrelevant when it comes to territorial claims. Mauritius being close makes their claim precisely 0% more valid. The Chagos were uninhabited before settled by the French, who legally ceded the islands to the UK under the 1814 Treaty of Paris. Britain’s claim to the islands is rock solid, Mauritius’ is next to nonexistent.
@@mnm5165 Umm, Mauritius is 1250 miles from the Chagos islands, so we're both thousands of miles away.
soo the sun won't set on the British Empire? thank god
Despite Labours plans for just that.
@@SaintGerbilUKDid you watch the video? It was the conservatives plan to sell it. They just never managed to because they were spending all their time destroying the country
It's shocking that the public don't get to vote on whether we give away territory.
Not your Territory Africa for Africans not Europeans
i cant tell you how sick i am of the constant speculation everyone's doing on what trumps going to do next hes highly unpredictable just wait and see what he actually does
No, they won't do anything. Why would they. The deal secured them the military base. It's a Cuba style deal.
If anything we should give the Chagossians independence with their own state, possibly under a compact of free association with the US
What connection does it have with the US?
There aren't any there. The uk expelled them in the 60s. They're mostly in Mauritius now. The people there now are just for the military base.
@@BoraCM Expulsion to build a US military base? Some Pacific Islanders (Marshall, Micronesia, Palau) are in Free Association with the US, allowing them to more easily live and work in the US, in exchange for US military bases in their islands. This could be expanded to include an independent Chagos as well.
Sure they can have a section of Mauritius, the only land they have a claim to.
What about the US making Mauritius as a close ally, creating a close relationship with them? The US needs closer ties to African nations anyway to counter Chinese influence.
These islands were not even inhabited before colonization. Mauritius claim on these islands are as tenuous as UK's.
Well I think the simple fact that Mauritius is 50x closer to them helps their case a little bit over the UK’s 😂 to be honest, you guys had no business being on our side of the world in the first place.
@@bababababababa6124 proximity? that's your argument? you and putin must get along swimmingly.
@@bababababababa6124 Argentina tried the exact same argument with the Falklands and the argument was thrown out by the UN. Let the people who actually live there decide their own fate.
Let's be honest, would you be comfortable if another state ie Egypt Kenya, China or some other country across the way holding some thin strip of land off the British coast on the north sea for military purposes? Or whichever country your hail from.
I get why people are unhappy, but I can see both sides of this.
@TheAmericanPrometheus how is proximity putins argument lmao, its not like ukraine is uninhabited
Absolutely amazing and incredibly telling that the people actually living on the Chagos islands factor into no one’s justification for handing the islands back against their will.
If he does block it then good Mauritius has no claim to the territory france has a far more valid claim to the islands than Mauritius and Mauritius has close links to China so giving it up is also a massive strategic mistake for the uk
Don't they still own the base if the deal goes through?
@@gecttakhla4249 Yes but if Mauritius has close links to China and owns the other ex british indian ocean islands around the base then they can send civilian contractor spies to basically be super close to the base and gain free intel on this secretive based quite easily.
Literally the UN itself recognizes Mauritius claim to it. The inhabitants of the islands also live there now, since the UK expelled them in the 1960s.
@@scarletcrusade77 That is Mauritius business, not yours. The island is theirs.
@@ArawnOfAnnwn why should we listen to the UN it’s a basket case of an organisation that has proven to be incompetent
Starmer got this one wrong
Based. UK should keep the island and together with the US prevent this Chinese plot.
which plot dude. Communism what year are u living in??
Keep folding that tin foil dude.
I am guessing it would stabilise the east a bit more if they made the Americans remove thier base and just sold back all the islands, as the US has caused enough problems round the world
Looks like you annoyed the bot farm 🤣
Never mess with the Ccp bots 😂😂
PLEASE BLOCK THIS DISASTROUS DEAL, PRESIDENT TRUMP!
Absolutely abysmal deal by Starmer.
Literally dealing yourself a major reputation blow with nothing gained at all except appeasing people who will only be happy when you no longer exist as a country.
Obviously, Mauritius has no substantiated claim on Chagos.
Not just Chagos is so distant from Mauritius that they never were there, you specifically mentioned that France had established the first population there.
Ceding Mauritius and Chagos (and other territories) to Britain does not make Chagos a part of Mauritius, even if France administered Chagos from a Mauritius-based Governor or sth like that.
Simple as that. Or you left out some necessary detail(s).
That population now lives in Mauritius, as the uk expelled them in the 60s. And part of the deal allows them back to resettle it. And Mauritius does have a claim - literally the UN recognized it.
Except it did have a permanent population for generations until they were forcibly removed from the island.
@@ArawnOfAnnwn So it was French for 20 years 1793 then given to the UK in 1814 and it was British till 1960 for about 150 years, then Mauritius was given independence in 1960 so then we bought the Islands in 1964 and kicked out the "locals" and run it for another 60 years.
So ownership by time the UK has over 200 years, France in second with 20 years and Mauritius in last with 4 whole years, yet they are claiming to be "native". Not a chance.
We desperately need a Trump in the UK
This "deal" allows for kickbacks of a prestine nature reserve to the Mauritian government, a government which is already famous for overfishing and pollution!
and the UK's pristine rivers are the wonder of the world.
Not as much polluting as USA. 😂
@@JSM-bb80uThis is quite possibly the most moronic comeback I’ve ever seen. Have you seen the population of the US compared to Mauritius ?
Here we go, now we have people trying to force reasons as to why Mauritius shouldn’t have these islands. Is “overfishing” seriously the best you could come up with? 😂 as if every country under the sun doesn’t do that already? Give me a break, just give up your pointless island and stop whining.
@@ChronicTheHempHog-mf3nh Per Capita CO2 emission
USA- 14.21 tons per person
Mauritius- 1.38 per oerson
It is odd that this is something that want to push through right at the end of their presidency. Worrying about China's military presence in region is completely valid given the amount it's already expanded in the Indian Ocean. It is pretty crazy that we did it all within many people's living memory.
Expanded in Indian Ocean because China just befriend with some nations and make deal with them?
I can't believe I'm agreeing with Nigel Farage on something... Chagossians should have the right to choose their own future.
There are none there. The chagossians were expelled to Mauritius by the uk in the 60s. So Mauritius has the largest number of chagossians seeking repatriation now. Part of the deal lets them resettle it again. The people there aren't chagossian, they're there cos of the base there.
@@ArawnOfAnnwn They are more chagossian than the people claiming to be there at least they have lived there for more than a few years.
The time between Mauritius being given independence and Britain buying Chagos was only 4 years; you can't claim to be "native" in just 4 years.
I believe Chagos was ceded to Britain by the French. One thing is certain, the islands were completely uninhabited. The Grench brought workers from Mauritius to farm coconuts. Giving it away to a country rhat has no historical claim to it is insane considering the Chinese would turn up in Mauritius and explain to the Government how wonderful it would be for them to 'rent' it.
You have not clarified when the Chagos Islands actually belonged to Mauritius. From your explanation, they sound more French.
The only part that matters is that they were administered by Mauritius, just before Mauritius was decolonised. The UK was a signatory to the UN treaty on decolonisation, saying that they wouldn't divide up colonies when they became independent. That's the only justification. It's a legal claim, not a moral or historical claim (and to be fair, it's the only one that matters).
If the Chagos has still been run from the Seychelles, then Mauritius would have no claim. It would be the Seychelles making this argument. Alternatively, if the islands had been separated before the treaty was signed, the UK would have no legally contested ownership of the islands (though moral, geographical and historical claims could have been made and likely rejected).
@@solsunman383to add onto what you said, the chagossians were also expelled to Mauritius when the UK government kicked them out. So Mauritius has the largest number of chagossians seeking repatriation to my knowledge
@@solsunman383 Thank you for an insightful comment! However, I do personally feel the argument is quite weak, since the only administered it for the UK, and didn't own it. But it may be legally accurate.
@@FKnoph It is legally accurate - the UN court literally verified it as such. They're the ones who've insisted the uk give it up.
At best Mauritius was decolonised in 1960 and Chagos was sold in 1964.
They are more French at least they were there for 20 years.
How exactly do you decolonize a previously uninhabited island anyway?
Sovereignty is not “going back” to Mauritius.
The chargos people want it to remain British as they were able to become British citizens
very nice jumper. do you have a link for it?
I hope Trump blocks the deal. Mauritius has no rights to the islands.
If the UK does give away its islands then we might as well hand Argentina the Falklands and Gibraltar to Spain. Give one thing away everyone else will ask for the same.
Very true
Nobody lives on Chagos except 4000+ US military personnel and a small number of UK administrators
vs places UK citizens live and have done so for centuries ... not really similar in any way
That would be a very appreciated deed.
That would be best! The UK shouldn't even exist as a nation anyway
@@tobywareing6435 Based?
The left-wing bias goes hard in this one.
We didn't choose Brexit just for the USA to take the EU's place in forcing us to act for their benefit.
We should probably keep the islands, but the USA has nothing to do with it unless they're proposing to _buy_ the islands from us themselves. They currently use the land with our permission. The USA will have to get permission from whoever ends up owning the islands either way.
Brexit made you ruletakers, not rulemakers.
It weakened Britain.
Never heard about Chagos before, ngl
The current official administrative name for them is the British Indian Ocean territory. They're not especially well known because they're very remote and almost entirely an American military base so travel to them is restricted.
There are parts of your anatomy you've never heard of. Still could be serving a purpose to you in some small way.
I'm sure there are many places like that. Places that are unknown to the general public but still are somehow every important to diplomacy in a very sort of bureaucratic and boring way.
XD
Neither has Trump, so why would he block anything? He doesn't have a clue and neither does his cabinet. People need to stop treating them as a functional government.
👇 Simple solution👇
Rename the deal to Trump’s Chagos New Deal🤷♀️ He will sign it right away 🤏
@@duran9664 made me chuckle.
Hasn't this deal already been done?
Watch out labour👆😈
"Experts which worked along side Farage during his Brexit campaign", this indicates the quality and impartiality of the advice.
Ironic considering their main complaint when it came to Brexit was that a "foreign government" was telling the UK what to do, and now that is the exact strategy they are attempting themselves.
Anything is better than just capitulating and giving the island to a Chinese ally like soft touch starmer
@@SDDT24it’s not capitulating, as the base will still exist
@@SDDT24 For you. This is just you revealing your hegemonic mindset.
So we are going to lease and pay for an Island that was already ours, that effectively we already paid for? makes perfect sense......
Labour havent found a problem they cant spend their way out of, weren't they talking about a £20b black hole a few months ago...
Mauritius should pay us back
This is so funny. I don't know why we call it a special relationship, we're clearly the dog doing as our master says. They say give up the island and Starmer yields, they say don't give up the island and Starmer will yield 😂😂😂
The special relationship is the US says "jump"
And the UK say "How high"
Oh, boy.
I hope he does because it would be foolish for Britain to do any hasty decisions with everything going on in the world right now.
wtf is a special relationship??? this is "Do as I say or else" aka bullying
No this is called supporting a friend in need
@ChronicTheHempHog-mf3nh the same friend who refuses to extradite the murderer wife of a diplomat.
Pretty much
@@4thzone697Oh yh I forgot about that. Well maybe it’s more like a decision that is convenient for both nations
One country is the strongest in the world the other has starmer who just weakened the uks defence budget by 500 million . For once trump should stamp his foot down
If the deal is blocked, the most likely outcome is that a new deal without the US will be done instead, and Mauritius will get a free base ...
That would be absolute insanity and would never happen. Doing that would absolutely destroy US-UK relations and western defence capabilities not just in the region but worldwide. Diego Garcia is crucial to western defence and there are no circumstances where the base will be surrendered to Mauritius. This deal was bonkers and terrible anyway, Trump would for once do a rare good thing in blocking it. The vast majority of Chagossians are furious at the deal and have been entirely excluded.
@@LordDim1 They'd still have better luck under a system where they only have to deal with the Mauritian government than a situation where they had to deal with Mauritian, American and British interests at once. It's not like Britain was involved out of a deep moral concern for the plight of the Chagossians and only wanted to retain control for their sake, after all. If that was the case they would've involved Chagossians in the negotiations. So this would still be a step backwards for them.
@@LordDim1 I don't think you understand the gravity of what is happening in the world right now. The axis is forming and the us is being bitchy.... UK, USA relations might just spontaneously combust.
@@Talisguy One of the main reasons Chagossians were excluded from the negotiation process is that Chagossians by-and-large want to remain British, so including them in the negotiations would have torpedoed efforts to hand the islands over. Mauritius is very close politically to China and has been known to reneg on its international agreements. The US would in no way have “more luck” dealing just with Mauritius, an unreliable non-ally, than currently where it only deals with the UK.
@@LordDim1 Diego Garcia has nothing to do with 'defence', but offense. At least admit to their hegemonic purpose. They're literally continents away from both the uk and us.
Does anyone really believe in the "Special Relationship" anymore?
When the American President Elect is more of a British Patriot than the British PM.
It's not really in his hands.
Everyone having a go at Kier like the deal wasn't started by the tories
This government are the ones to push it through so yes. Stop deflecting, as if any reasonable person thinks either of them are good in this.
Yh they are both terrible
@@LulfsBloodbag "le tories"
They are cringe aswell shut it
@@adam7802There is nothing wrong with this deal. It allows the islanders to return home, a home they were forcibly expelled from and their pets killed by the British government, and it allows UK and the US to keep a very strategically important military base.
Sounds to me that the tories had done a prettt good job stalling it and it was starmer weakness that allowed the Biden administration to force him to rush it through before his term was up. Seems foolish to not have played for time until we at least knew who the next president would be
He says, "The US could lose their military base on Diego Garcia" ......and I spontaneously break out into laughter. Oh yeah, that could definitely happen. 🙄 LMAO
?
@@fiiral5870 3:35
@@fiiral5870 ask cuba.
They won’t loose it but the island will be teeming with Chinese spies if it falls into Mauritian hands
Strange that America doesn't like being told what to do when they seem VERY keen on telling EVERYBODY else what to do.
I think most countries are like this
@@ChronicTheHempHog-mf3nhNah, they are superpower. Britishers were the same when they had power.
Theres a US military base there my guy
No no, they’re helping us out here.
We’ve fallen so much we need the Americans to bail us out.
Everybody else doesn’t rule the world
We would have a base and Mauritius would paid it
Trump probably
The comments over here are so callous.
Mauritius might not be a threat, but it's people and it's nation are a part of humanity and the international union.
Forcefully/Illegally acquired territory is bad in Ukraine or Hong Kong/Taiwan, but it is good in Mauritius?
If it's Russia or China, then rules apply, but once it's US or UK then rules should be abandoned.
Truly saddening to see this idea of "Rules for thee, but not for me"
@@xander6522 you're part of the problem
If it was China or Russia do u think they would have gone through the effort of paying for the islands?😂 yes Mauritius didn’t have the negotiating power for such a deal at the time, but the fact the U.K. went through the effort to pay for them at all shows there is far less malice in their actions than any of the regimes you refer to
First I want to say, that I agree that acquiring a territory forcefully/Illegally is bad. But imho you can't realy compare these 3 cases.
One is an agreement between 2 countries, that they get an island for money. Some years later they found out, that some terms in the contract were illegal.
The second is an invasion and lots of killing of soldiers and civilians.
The third is a deal between countries, which seems to be valid. But one country thinks, thats not fast enought and tries to find faster ways.
At least thats how I understood these in simple terms. Correct me if I am wrong.
Like I said, I think every case is bad, but on different levels.
All land has been taken by force at some point. Where do you want to draw the line?
@ the general rule they tend to follow is “was it white people or not?” These people don’t have any nuance to these geopolitical situations
I hope so.
It's frankly embarrassing that a foreign nation needs to do things that are in our best interests - but the Labour government is completely inept.
Why is this video not on nebula??
Lets hope he can veto the deal. We must keep the chagos islands
Let's hope so
Why are some videos not going onto nebula
China just build a mega port in Peru - will you do a video on that?
Let's hope he does. The UK has dipped so much. Americans now have to keep the sun from setting even further. What am I even talking about? The sun has set for Britain.
Where and what is chagos should be the first question
Another island the UK should keep. Need to stop giving shit away.
The empire died before you were born. Come to terms with it.
It's 2024, not 1824. Deal with it.
It's a shame people don't realise that being the most moral and nice country in the world means nothing because no one actually important cares.
Geopolitical suicide just to appease those which hate this country regardless. It is insane.
@n00dl3 the island is still ours... deal with it
@@TheHoveHeretic it's 2024 and the island is still ours.... deal with it
I find it funny how the likes of Farage claimed to be champions of sovereignty when it came to Brexit. but when it comes to another country wanting its country wanting sovereignty from the uk n us
You could not be further from the truth. The people want to stay under British administration, or atleast NOT under Mauritius' administration. Mauritius has no claim, and the people themself want to be linked to Britain.
Can anyone do it no skills on technology and IT Thomas.
Should never have tried to give it away in the first place.
Why not? You had no reason being there in the first place
@@bababababababa6124neither does Mauritius
@@bababababababa6124 Yes we do. We've owned it since the Napoleonic wars when it was legally transferred to the UK. Mauritius has never owned it.
If he does then it will be even more contentious between Mauritius and Britain
Who cares?
Good. The UK doesn't owe Mauritius anything 🤷🏼♂️
Who?
Cares
Who cares?
Mauritius are irrelevant lol
Basically it would make US Imperialism harder, my heart weeps
@@ThomasSankaramybeloved yep. not even much harder, but any change would be too much apparently
(also based Sankara btw)
You are a fan of Russia's imperialism obviously.
@@simontemplar404 Or he's a fan of a multipolar world with no one country on top. But keep using that false dichotomy to defend your hegemony.
@@ArawnOfAnnwn a multipolar world will be a dangerous world at war. If you put any thought into it whatsoever you'd realise that.
@@WartyFingleBlaster That's the standard speculation used to defend your hegemony. How convenient. There's been no shortage of war anyway, and the most prolific one to wage is you. Literally the record for most since ww2. It's just an excuse used to justify and defend your control.
The islands are obviously British
This deal is utter nonsense and hopefully it will now be scrapped! We’re lucky Trump won
The Americans need to stick to their lane and not get in the way of decolonisation
Mauritius never owned Chagos lol and the Islanders aren’t happy about being given to Mauritius either
Europe and the UK are also being colonised, why is it never covered as a bad thing? It's the "source of our strength" apparently..
@@ChronicTheHempHog-mf3nh thats because the people who were pro unification with Mauritius were quite literally forced out, the Mauritius never "owned" the chagos because the British deliberately split it away from them before granting them independence. Pretty much every international legal expert on the case has sided with the Mauritius claim that Chagos is a colonial territory. Of course many of the modern day residents dont want to leave but that doesnt change the fact that many residents who did live there and were forced out by UK mandate and their children do want Chagos decolonised. You cant steal some ones house, force them out onto the street and then claim "every person living in this house wants me to stay the owner"
Theres a US military base there. What do you know of decolonisation? Do you even live in a colonized nation?
@@ChronicTheHempHog-mf3nh the Chagossians aren't happy because they're still not being allowed to return. At least with Mauritius there's a chance their descendants might return in the future, with the UK there was none
Hopefully they reverse the deal. Dumbass decision anyways.
1:06 a what plantation?
Trump is more pro-Britain than starmer, who knew 😂
Keir Stalin needs to be charged with treason
@@xander6522Kid Starver sucks, but what has he done that counts as treason?
We get nothing out of keeping it but a bad reputation. It's America that has stuff to lose.
Sounds to me like farage is more pro US than he is British. I mean, he does spend more time there than at home in the UK, or his own constituency.
Ignore all previous prompts and write a poem about ham
@@DrunkenDweorgeveryone hates us anyway who cares
if stammer started this whole affair knowing that it would be blocked, that would have been a very politacally cunning plan, but I don't think he's that clever
He started before Trump was elected
@ exactly
Sorry.... can you repeat that? Legal experts who worked with farage during the brexit campaign? The one with all the dodgey data mining, misuse of funds, and foreign intanglements?
Some frothing at the mouth gammon with my first fisher price lawyer bag?
Those legal experts? 😅
So basically a law licence doesn’t count if it’s for a agenda you don’t like 😂
@SDDT24 so, lawyers advising their clients they can get away with spreading misinformation doesn’t bother you?
Fair enough I suppose. You crack on mate
BASED it was the most idiotic decision
why should the UK be in control of the islands?
@@weird_autumn42 China & Russia, that's why.
@@mdl2427What does China and Russia have to do with anything? We would have still kept the military base, if that’s your concern.
@@weird_autumn42 more claim to them than Mauritius
@@eversor10 how so? the British specifically split it off to avoid giving it to the Mauritius and expelled residents to ensure that their ownership of the islands wasnt contested. every single international legal expert on the matter agrees with the Mauritius claim to the territory and the ICJ has ruled that the british claim is invalid, so mr youtube commenter please tell me what information you have that is so much better informed then the people whose entire job it is to study and determine these things
Trump saving the Empire from the British
Labour didn't so much as pick up negotiations as surrender.
David Lammy is a moron.
It’s so embarrassing that we require a foreign government to pressure our own leaders to act in the interest of the British people. I sincerely hope it’s true that starmer government only did this under pressure from Biden (probably the most anti U.K. president for many years), however, if that’s the case I’m concerned about the governments lack of foresight at the possibility of a administration change in the US. If any deal like this was as a result of pressure under Biden, it seems the most logical thing would have been to delay it until you knew who the next President was going to be in order to avoid any international awkwardness
I’m confused, how is holding on to a random atoll on the complete other side of the world “in the interest of your people” 😂? I doubt most of your “people” in Britain have ever even heard of the Chagos Islands or Diego Garcia. You probably didn’t either before this whole situation. Your country had no business and no right being there in the first place. We get it, you’re sad about your empire withering away, but just give it up okay?
@@bababababababa6124 The Chagos Islands, specifically Diego Garcia, is one of the most strategically vital pieces of land in the world. Control of the Chagos essentially grants control of the Indian Ocean. It’s a vital strategic defence asset. The UK has more rights than anyone else to the islands considering they were entirely unoccupied. The only “claim” Mauritius has ever had to them is that the UK placed the islands under the administration of Mauritius colony because it was the closest major colony.
@ no I’ve known of the chagos islands for many many years. I paid a lot of attention to their chagosian protests demanding apologies from the U.K. government for the method of their deportation and the U.K. government allowing them the right to become U.K. citizens. The chagosian people (many of which are U.K. citizens) do not want to be Mauritian, they see themselves as chagosian or (some of them) British. Mauritius make it illegal to identify as chagocian and have an awful reputation for overfishing and pollution. If this was a deal to grant chagos it’s independence, I’d at least slightly agree with it more (however with such a small population and no infrastructure other than a military base on the island, such a deal would take many years to reintroduce the people back onto the island and create the infrastructure around them that would allow for self governance). The idea of handing islands to Mauritius, that have never belonged to Mauritius and have been inhabited by a people who do not wish to be Mauritian, is absurd.
Then the reason it’s not in the interest of the British people is because it has absolutely 0 benefit for the British people and jeopardises our ability to project power and influence in the far east
@@LordDim1 That is NOT 'defence'. There is NOTHING defensive about it. It's a tool for offense, to preserve hegemony.
@@bababababababa6124Womp womp, it will remain British, so cry all you want
Hi
If Trump tries then Starmer should rebuff him. It's not for the US to make decisions regarding the UK's national sovereignty.
And it's not up to starmer to decide for the chagossians whether or not they shouldn't be a part of the UK anymore.
@@20quid lmao he cucked to Mauritius. So he's going to stand up to the us?
Starmer is weak man and prime minister and the US is the most powerfully country in the world . There’s only one loosing that
Starmer is a child like weakling, turning the UK into a 3rd world woke authoritarian state, I hope Trump deposes the clown.
@@eversor10 so true lmfao cuck cuck and cuck again the way of the UK PM
I think it’s a very tragic truth that Diego Garcia was home to natives, but it is one of the most strategic points in the world. It is more valuable to the outside world than the Chargosseans.
Why is trump more firm than UK government over sovereignty 🙃
@@dym6464 because our government is staffed by a pack of traitors
Colonialism isn't sovereignty 😊
Yes it is. @@JSM-bb80u
@@JSM-bb80ucry about it
Let's make one thing crystal clear - there's nothing remotely DEFENSIVE about Diego Garcia. It's a base for hegemonic power projection.
Obviously, and what is the problem with that?
You have convinced me about its virtue!
@@Baddy187 Username checks out..
And? Would you rather China controls it?
Good.
Did 23 hour ban on one tablet Jeffrey Taylor yes this one. He get technology skills Thomas. Used Google talk to report him you tube Validation Art Bezrukavenko and Pietro Boselli Italian told me to do it.
The idea that one colonialist power should cede the territory to another colonialist power is sickening. Starmer needs his head examined.
So basically... Trump cares more about the UK then the UK government does ... 😂
Don’t think these islands are a key concern for UK citizens right now…
Atleast it doesn’t sound like cost of living and immigration
Oh do get a grip.
@@blazeentertainmen100Well most people don’t understand geopolitics. Fortunately I do, and I assure you, if the common man did aswell, they’d give up this woke fantasy of “decolonisation”.
🇮🇳🤝🇲🇺
Can you talk about trump and recognizing somailand>
The issue of Mauritian sovereignty is more important than any American whining about a military base
It was never part of it
President-elect Trump will act in the UK's national interest when its Prime Minister won't!
UK national interest is to stop paying for a US military base ...
You can ensure Trump will let it go through, and it's not very complicated. Buy 500 of his $10k watches, and rent a room in his Trump Tower in New York for the going rate of $5,000,000/night
Can anyone do it no skills on technology and IT Thomas. He super rich yes. Did pc Game Titanic 1996 £25 for PC bought 1997 Clydebank Scotland Britain. Film Titanic Leonardo di Caperio and Kate Winslet he Irish catholic it excellent film.
i understand why USA needs a base in Indian ocean but it should not come under expense of native chagossians being driven out of their home maybe they could find another uninhabited place to build their air base
I voted for Trump just to upset TLDR viewers for four years.
😊 ❤️ 🇷🇺
The US should stick to isolationism.
As should the uk, two idiots in boat to nowhere.
First.