What I would do to move to one of these places, away from the problems at home but able to hold my identity firmly. Absolutely beautiful, brilliant filming and commentary.
Vulcan GBR You should come down to the Falkland Islands! We definitely are not tropical like Bermuda, but we are incredibly patriotic and have incredible scenery! 🇫🇰🇬🇧
Barbara Hallinan You can get a flight to Punta Arenas, then to Santiago Chile and then you can fly to any airport in the world. Or you can get an RAF plane straight to Brize Norton (near Oxford) I don't fly back to the UK that often
Hello from Canada. I'm very glad I found Redfern NH Productions and their quality documentaries on the UK Overseas Territories. Excellent documentaries that allow us in Canada to see places that we'll never be able to visit. Many thanks.
Guy Castonguay You're just anti British lol. British banned Indian widow burning in India and made sure such barbaric acts wouldn't happen in their colonies. A republic itself is a British invention.
@@joshuas22 They have a guaranteed permanent UN security council seat meaning they'll veto any UN action against them and cannot be removed of power. The USA, UK and other western allies must instead take action separate of the UN.
Watching this makes me feel so so sad, my grandparents were from the British Indian Ocean territory(chagos archipelago). They were deported from their Natives land. I wish that they were deported to England instead of Mauritius where they have constantly been horribly discriminated by the Mauritian government. Being exile in Mauritius they have always been put aside, having no rights and living in poverty. We are the new generation, we are still facing a lot of difficulties and our families are divided. It's time that the UK recognized us as British overseas territories citizens, so that we can live in the UK and be reunited with some of our families. Dear majesty hear us, help us. We should have the right to visit the British Indian Ocean territory as well where our ancestors came from. They have constantly been talking about their lands, how peaceful and beautiful their lives use to be when they were living on the British Indian Ocean territory(chagos archipelago) but Mauritius was hell. I'm the new generation we did not ask to be born In Mauritius. We are recognizing our flag 🇩🇬🇩🇬🇩🇬🇩🇬🇩🇬🇩🇬🇩🇬🇩🇬🇩🇬🇩🇬🇩🇬 We are part of the Biot Please recognize us, we want to be listened, to exist. We are a generation of historical unfairness. The pain is real #family_must_be_reunited #wearebiot #WeAreBritish #nationalityandbordersbill
British government is too busy robbing it’s own citizens to care, if i was leader i would give chagosians British overseas citizens and let them repopulate the islands, sadly the americans would never give up their diego garcia base
Watching this makes me so so sad, my grandparents were from the British Indian Ocean territory(chagos archipelago). They were deported from their Natives land. I wish that they were deported to England instead of Mauritius where they have constantly been horribly discriminated by the Mauritian government. Being exiled in Mauritius they have always been put aside, having no rights and living in poverty. We are the new generation, we are still facing a lot of difficulties and our families are divided. It's time that the UK recognized us as British overseas territories citizens, so that we can live in the UK and be reunited with some of our families. Dear majesty hear us, help us. We should have the right to visit the British Indian Ocean territory as well where our ancestors came from. They have constantly been talking about their lands, how peaceful and beautiful their lives use to be when they were living on the British Indian Ocean territory(chagos archipelago) but Mauritius was hell. I'm the new generation we did not ask to be born In Mauritius. We are recognizing our flag 🇩🇬🇩🇬🇩🇬🇩🇬🇩🇬🇩🇬🇩🇬🇩🇬🇩🇬🇩🇬🇩🇬 Please recognize us, we want to be listened, to exist. We are a generation of historical unfairness. #family_must_be_reunited #wearebiot #WeAreBritish #nationalityandbordersbill
The Isle of Saint Helena is a very special place historically and as a very unique biosphere, with a collection of endemic plants and at one time several animals. The only surviving animal of any size is a plover called the wire bird. It may look barren on the cliffs, but the interior is fairly lush, due to the ample rainfall of the interior. On certain parts of the slopes, there is an effort underway to replant many species of endemic trees and shrubs that have almost become extinct and there is some progress being made in the restoration of the Millennial Forest. The new airport has finally been opened to International traffic with the designation HLE, and is a facility to be proud of. Bill, K5EYS
Kingofgoldness R British people are cool you say? Well anyone whom commits CRIMES against humanity are not cool! Did you know that the queen signed an authorization for the FORCED take over of the small island nation of Diego Garcia in modern 1965 forcing all it's inhabitants onto ships to be taken to Mauritius to live in poverty? The island was hen leased to the Americans for MONEY How cruel and uncompassionate and greedy can you get? Shame on her and Britain She should be placed in irons and tossed into the Tower of London for this inhumane act The argument is that she had no choice Bullshit! As a human being she could have refused to sign
@@guycastonguay9633 Britain long being one of the most progressive and fair countries in it's continent at many given eras. Not to mention all but one of their huge empire's colonies being released without violent revolution needed. Not even to mention the steps they took, putting a 1/3 of their navy into the West Africa Squadron, to destroy slave trade cartels where-ever they presented themselves. The UK has a history of good and bad, this is no reflection on the country now, the culture, and definitely not the people. I do hope you won't attribute crimes many years old to those who haven't anything to do with them, instead looking to the present. Have a good day, and God save the Queen
Antarctica is not owned solely by Britain. It was rightly divided between the people that discovered the land. Without someone claiming it, who knows how many countries would take the opportunity to exploit it. It is territory used purely for science and is protected because of it, but whose to say another country wouldn't have used it for something else? Saying that any of those islands shouldn't be British, is like saying America shouldn't be owned by Americans! Most, if not all, of the overseas territories that are populated, were populated by British settlers, and the unpopulated areas are protected from exploitation.
It was not rightly divided, because 1. it was not divided and 2. most claims are contested. The territory is used for science and stuff because of the Antarctica treaty, which suspends all claims to it, not because this or that other nation claimed it, since no one of the nations that claimed is better or more rightful in managing natural resources than any other on earth. When the treaty of Antarctica ends, if its not renewed, then we'll see if the UK and all the other "owners" of Antarctica really want it to continue unexploited. Let's see what happens. I just know one thing for sure: that land should not be owned by people from the other side of the world. Just clarifying something: that land is not used because of an international treaty, not because of this or that other country's sovereign will. The UK isn't protecting anywhere from anything. Now, the thing about the US is that it is different because they are a sovereign country, and, in the end of the day, if we go to the beginning of the world, most people ought to be expelled from where they are... no, this is beyond the point. The thing with British islands in the Atlantic is that they are either also claimed by other nations that are closer and have a good historical claim, which should not be denied, or they are simply should belong to countries closer by, preferentially in the South Atlantic. The fact that they belong to Britain isn't enough to make it rightful, and if we follow your argument, than no claim to any land ever is legitimate, except the first one ever... so one has to be political and acknowledge what is possible and what is right or wrong is a given situation. The UK keeping it's former colonies in the other side or the wrong is not right nor legitimate.
1.)*"it was not divided"* - It *was* divided, by eight official claims: Argentine Antarctica (Department of Tierra del Fuego, Antarctica, and South Atlantic Islands Province) 1942, Australian Antarctic Territory (External dependent territory of Australia) 1933, Chilean Antarctic Territory (Commune of Antártica Chilena Province) 1940, Adélie Land (District of the French Southern and Antarctic Lands) 1924, Ross Dependency (Dependency of New Zealand) 1923, Queen Maud Land (Dependency of Norway) 1939, Peter I Island (Dependency of Norway) 1929, and British Antarctic Territory (Overseas territory of the United Kingdom) 1908. 2.)*"most claims are contested."* - Anyone can contest a claim, that doesn't magically mean that the claim doesn't exist and isn't official. 3.)*"the Antarctica treaty, which suspends all claims to it"* - No acts or activities taking place while the present Treaty is in force shall constitute a basis for asserting, supporting *or denying a claim* to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica or create any rights of sovereignty in Antarctica. No *new* claim, *or enlargement* of an *existing claim* to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica shall be asserted while the present Treaty is in force. In other words, claims *can* be made and can not be denied, asserted, or supported. 4.)*"no one of the nations that claimed is better or more rightful in managing natural resources than any other on earth"* - I don't recall claiming that one country was/is better at managing natural resources than another. The rightful claim is the first one, as you say later on, the UK made the first claim to a piece of land therefore it is rightful and legitimate. 5.)*"When the treaty of Antarctica ends, if its not renewed, then we'll see if the UK and all the other "owners" of Antarctica really want it to continue unexploited."* - You really must turn that "When" to an "if", because it is highly unlikely that the Antarctic Treaty will end, it has 52 signatures, I highly doubt that is all going to be forgotten or disbanded any time soon or in the distant future. The Antarctic is too important. 6.)*"that land is not used because of an international treaty"* - The only things the treaty prohibits, is the military use of the land, nuclear explosions and the disposal of radioactive waste. It doesn't even state in the treaty that only Scientific research is allowed, it states that it guarantees continued *freedom* to conduct scientific research, and promotes international scientific cooperation. It doesn't once state that scientific research is the only thing that can take place. 7.)*"The UK isn't protecting anywhere from anything."* - Huh, that's funny, because I think you'll find that actually the British Antarctic Survey does a lot of work to protect the environment and wildlife in the area, even before the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (1991) was introduced. www.bas.ac.uk/about/antarctica/environmental-protection/ 8.)*" the thing about the US is that it is different because they are a sovereign country"* - So are another 206, including the UK, how is America different? The USA has 16 overseas territories (although two are disputed), the UK has 14 (20 if you include the crown dependencies, although, they are self-governing). The British Overseas Territories are under the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the United Kingdom. 9.)*"if we go to the beginning of the world, most people ought to be expelled from where they are"* - So by *your* argument, everyone should live in Africa, the "cradle of humanity", and completely leave the rest of the world, just because "it is not ours to claim". 10.)*"they are either also claimed by other nations that are closer and have a good historical claim"* - Chile and Argentina made claims almost 30 years late, their claims are no where near as strong as the UK's, and how could they possibly have a greater historical claim, if the UK claimed it almost 30 years previous? 11.)*"they are simply should belong to countries closer by, preferentially in the South Atlantic"* - Any inhabited land would much prefer to be under the rule and protection of an MEDC with global influence, rather than an LEDC with problems it is already struggling to deal with on its own. I'm sure they'd prefer the more economically stable every time, an arrangement they actually benefit from. As for uninhabited land, I would much rather it be in the hands of a country that understands the importance of conserving the wildlife in that area, than in the hands of one that would much rather exploit it for the money they lack. 12.)*"The fact that they belong to Britain isn't enough to make it rightful"* - Actually, a lot of current inhabited overseas territories chose to remain under the rule of the UK through votes. Overseas territories that are inhabited are not forced to stay within the UK, and many benefit from the situation. For example, Pitcairn is one of the UK's inhabited overseas territories, they don't have to pay a single penny of tax, and they have gotten around £17.9 million since 2011, even though there are only 42 inhabitants on the small island. They have it better than the actual inhabitants of the island of the UK. So, while *you* might not think it is rightful, the inhabitants of the overseas territories aren't complaining about the situation at all. 13.)*"no claim to any land ever is legitimate, except the first one ever"* - I don't think you understand that the claim by the UK was the first one in that area. People didn't even know that Antarctica was land until the 1800's. 14.)*"one has to be political and acknowledge what is possible"* - In this day and age it has become even more possible to claim land than it was previously, so I'm failing to see what your argument is. 15.)*"what is right or wrong is (assuming you meant in) a given situation."* - What has the British Antarctic Survey done that is so horrific then? What has any of the countries of the claims done? What have they done wrong, especially in a situation where the land is uninhabited, how does the claiming of it make any negative difference to the land or its wildlife? 16.)*"The UK keeping it's former colonies in the other side or the wrong is not right nor legitimate."* - Not only was that an amazingly incoherent sentence, but how is the British claiming of land not legitimate?
1.) Countries claim it, but their claims are not recognized by other countries nor each other... thus, the land has not been properly divided, since people don't agree with the division. 2.) Anyone can contest a claim, surely, and anyone can make one two. Claiming one thing doesn't make you the owner, in the international sphere, if you don't either a. rule it (de facto) or b. are recognized in the world stage by pretty much everyone (de jure) none of which is true about the Antarctican claims. 3.) You just repeated what I said. CLAIMS ARE SUSPENDED, as I said, NOT REVOKED. The UK claims it, pretty much no one acknowledges this claim. 4.) You did claim the good management of natural resources is one of the reasons UK administration is good and no, first claim is not the only or an absolute base for claiming. There are several other bases and countries claim with different bases, such as geographical continuity, history, etc etc etc 5.) Did you know that one of the clauses of said treaty is an expiration date? If not renewed it WILL end. 6.) You are right, but I meant you can't use the land for economical purposes too (this is in fact correct) and this is the reason this region's nature is pretty much unscathed, not UK protection. Also, as you know, the treaty allow ALL COUNTRIES do conduct scientific research on the region, not only the claimers. 7.) Ok, they have a nice agency. What I meant is the obvious thing I just mentioned earlier: the reason the region boasts a prime nature is the non-development part of the Antarctica agreement, not UK policies that, obviously, do not REALLY, in fact, de facto apply in the region. 8.) I meant the mainland US. The US has its own load of land it should not own and that are pretty much contemporary colonies, like Puerto Rico, just to name the most famous, but also Guam. There is a lot of information and growing public awareness of that issue, I think. 9.) No, my argument is the opposite of that. My argument is that we have to take a pragmatical approach to claiming, not a first come, first serve approach. 10.) I meant other territories, when I said historical claim. But Chile's and Argentina's claim are more solid for simple reasons: geography and, yes, history, because the people's of these countries are closer economically and historically to Antarctica than the UK will ever be. 11.) So here is your wild-life conservation argument again, which as I just discussed (not true). Now, if people preferred to live in whatever kind of country the UK is rather than their own whatever kind of country, we'd not have had the colonial independences, then, would we? Anyway, geography also matters, not only political status. 12.) They chose because they are British settlers. Let the 200 million Indians enter the UK and, in 20 years, hold a referendum on any topic such as immigration or the relationship between the UK and India. 13.) I think you didn't see the word IF (IF IF IF IF) right before the part quoted. 14.) My point is: arguing your claim is rightful because it was the first is not pragmatical in the contemporary world. 15.) (typo, I am sorry, I did mean IN; I am sorry for the mistakes and hope the text is still understandable as a whole) I couldn't care less about British Antarctica; I did not make it clear, but here I was thinking about how OTHER countries will view this claims in the future... I don't know if you are aware of it, but China for one doesn't recognize any of these claims, and the USSR (Russia now, obviously) and the US " reserved themselves the right to make a territorial claim" in the future... so this area is not beyond contention, much to the contrary. As I said, contention is not seen only because the Antarctica treaty froze all claims. 16.) Firstly, I have a real curiosity: why was this sentence incoherent? (was it because I wrote it's instead of its or was it something else? btw where I wrote wrong I actually meant world. and or was supposed to be of. My mistake.) Please tell me so I can correct it. Secondly, just because you think having been the first to claim the lands makes it legitimate, as I said, we don't live in the 16th century anymore, so it doesn't work like that. It is illegitimate because these lands were acquired under controversial situations, namely, under British pressure, when half the world was made up of colonies and these couldn't defend their self-interests (nor could independent nations such as Argentina, because the main powers used to simply abuse their force). This is the first and foremost reason why the UK's claims are not legitimate.
Just because an island is close to another country - it doesn't give that country a divine right to them.That's quite possibly the most piss poor logic I've come across in a while. The only islands the UK should return are The Chagos Archipelago. The Falklands are British and always have been - The UK having made the first claim and never renounced it, same goes for the South Georgia and The South Sandwich Islands - which even Spain never once claimed. All the territories in the Caribbean remain British territories by choice. No rival claims to St.Helena or Tristan Da Cunha. Gibraltar is legally owned by the UK but probably should be returned in exchange for their autonomy.
Wrong, they were never part of an independent Mauritius which is over 2200km away. They were just jointly administered with Mauritius under British rule. The islands hold an important US/UK military base and should never be given to a CCP bootlicker like Mauritius.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I lived two years in the Cayman Islands and it was lovely.
What I would do to move to one of these places, away from the problems at home but able to hold my identity firmly. Absolutely beautiful, brilliant filming and commentary.
Vulcan GBR You should come down to the Falkland Islands!
We definitely are not tropical like Bermuda, but we are incredibly patriotic and have incredible scenery!
🇫🇰🇬🇧
Not much, I guess, if you haven't.
jatham k west how does one get to the falkland malvinas.........
Barbara Hallinan You can get a flight to Punta Arenas, then to Santiago Chile and then you can fly to any airport in the world.
Or you can get an RAF plane straight to Brize Norton (near Oxford)
I don't fly back to the UK that often
What is that abomination of a flag 😂😂
greetings from Bangladesh.
Greetings from the United Kingdom
"Gibraltar, famous for its macaques, the only wild primates in Europe."
Yeah, but have you ever seen the Brits in Ibiza? Pretty wild I'd say.
Entire England is basicially a primate colony
@UCxohlX5YldRrALEeGE92ozw all humans are primates you dumb ass 🤣
😂
LOL 🤣
Hello from Canada. I'm very glad I found Redfern NH Productions and their quality documentaries on the UK Overseas Territories. Excellent documentaries that allow us in Canada to see places that we'll never be able to visit. Many thanks.
beautiful lands
fresh air and water
I still love eating Britannia biscuits with tea occasionally.. nostalgia from Kolkata
nice weather there?
The sun never sets on Britannia...
Low check out the CRIMES of Britain on line and my comments posted about Diego Garcia. Britannia has dark days!
Guy Castonguay You're just anti British lol. British banned Indian widow burning in India and made sure such barbaric acts wouldn't happen in their colonies. A republic itself is a British invention.
Guy Castonguay what nation/empire doesn’t have dark days? NONE, the British empire had more of a positive effect rather than a negative.
the sun never sets on France Republic too
O God
Technically the sun STILL never sets on the British empire
congratulations excellent video information
Hello from Cyprus
Sup
Hello from the United Kingdom
Brilliant
I wish HongKong can return to British rule
Freak
Me too 🇬🇧🇭🇰
@@lawrielyons You seriously think China would let that happen? Hungry China would seriously commit inhumane crimes before the Brittish step in
Icęshård Dìm Vælőr Plusherû just get the USA and UN to pressure, them no referendum, no seat on the council and no trade
@@joshuas22 They have a guaranteed permanent UN security council seat meaning they'll veto any UN action against them and cannot be removed of power. The USA, UK and other western allies must instead take action separate of the UN.
A map of the location of the islands is needed.
BRITANNIA RULES THE WAVES !
With that few ships? Never. It does not even rule the English channel
@@lucius1976 someone’s jealous
@@lucius1976 cringe foreigner
@@lucius1976 🤡
Gracias!
Please add a map
Watching this makes me feel so so sad, my grandparents were from the British Indian Ocean territory(chagos archipelago). They were deported from their Natives land.
I wish that they were deported to England instead of Mauritius where they have constantly been horribly discriminated by the Mauritian government. Being exile in Mauritius they have always been put aside, having no rights and living in poverty. We are the new generation, we are still facing a lot of difficulties and our families are divided. It's time that the UK recognized us as British overseas territories citizens, so that we can live in the UK and be reunited with some of our families. Dear majesty hear us, help us. We should have the right to visit the British Indian Ocean territory as well where our ancestors came from. They have constantly been talking about their lands, how peaceful and beautiful their lives use to be when they were living on the British Indian Ocean territory(chagos archipelago) but Mauritius was hell. I'm the new generation we did not ask to be born In Mauritius. We are recognizing our flag 🇩🇬🇩🇬🇩🇬🇩🇬🇩🇬🇩🇬🇩🇬🇩🇬🇩🇬🇩🇬🇩🇬
We are part of the Biot Please recognize us, we want to be listened, to exist. We are a generation of historical unfairness. The pain is real
#family_must_be_reunited #wearebiot #WeAreBritish #nationalityandbordersbill
British government is too busy robbing it’s own citizens to care, if i was leader i would give chagosians British overseas citizens and let them repopulate the islands, sadly the americans would never give up their diego garcia base
Why are they called "terror trees"?
chrisrus1965 it’s territories
because that's how it’s pronounced yankee
Long live the empire!
GOP lid or not bc of the disgusting colonial rule that still hurts people to this day
how so?
empire of places that britain has raped?
You do need to get your eyes examined, or your head, propably both. Empire is gone GONE GONE
You didn't name the Chagos Archipelago there - political decision?
Watching this makes me so so sad, my grandparents were from the British Indian Ocean territory(chagos archipelago). They were deported from their Natives land.
I wish that they were deported to England instead of Mauritius where they have constantly been horribly discriminated by the Mauritian government. Being exiled in Mauritius they have always been put aside, having no rights and living in poverty. We are the new generation, we are still facing a lot of difficulties and our families are divided. It's time that the UK recognized us as British overseas territories citizens, so that we can live in the UK and be reunited with some of our families. Dear majesty hear us, help us. We should have the right to visit the British Indian Ocean territory as well where our ancestors came from. They have constantly been talking about their lands, how peaceful and beautiful their lives use to be when they were living on the British Indian Ocean territory(chagos archipelago) but Mauritius was hell. I'm the new generation we did not ask to be born In Mauritius. We are recognizing our flag 🇩🇬🇩🇬🇩🇬🇩🇬🇩🇬🇩🇬🇩🇬🇩🇬🇩🇬🇩🇬🇩🇬
Please recognize us, we want to be listened, to exist. We are a generation of historical unfairness.
#family_must_be_reunited #wearebiot #WeAreBritish #nationalityandbordersbill
2:15 I'm sure the flag provides lots of shelter on the Antarctic Penisular!
He could have said 'near by' or 'close to' instead of 'sheltered'.
hey, take it or leave it.. That flag could buy you 45 seconds out there
The Isle of Saint Helena is a very special place historically and as a very unique biosphere, with a collection of endemic plants and at one time several animals. The only surviving animal of any size is a plover called the wire bird. It may look barren on the cliffs, but the interior is fairly lush, due to the ample rainfall
of the interior.
On certain parts of the slopes, there is an effort underway to replant many species of endemic trees and shrubs that have almost become extinct and there is some progress being made in the restoration of the Millennial Forest. The new airport has finally been opened to International traffic with the designation HLE, and is a facility to be proud of.
Bill, K5EYS
❤❤❤
Britannia for ever !
There are a lot of birds
British people are cool lol
Gail Kerr you guys are everywhere
Kingofgoldness R British people are cool you say? Well anyone whom commits CRIMES against humanity are not cool! Did you know that the queen signed an authorization for the FORCED take over of the small island nation of Diego Garcia in modern 1965 forcing all it's inhabitants onto ships to be taken to Mauritius to live in poverty? The island was hen leased to the Americans for MONEY How cruel and uncompassionate and greedy can you get? Shame on her and Britain She should be placed in irons and tossed into the Tower of London for this inhumane act The argument is that she had no choice Bullshit! As a human being she could have refused to sign
Shut up, every big powerful nation has done wrong, it comes with the territory so to speak! But Britains done far more good than bad.
Guy Castonguay keep crying you little mong the past is the past 🇬🇧
@@guycastonguay9633 Britain long being one of the most progressive and fair countries in it's continent at many given eras. Not to mention all but one of their huge empire's colonies being released without violent revolution needed. Not even to mention the steps they took, putting a 1/3 of their navy into the West Africa Squadron, to destroy slave trade cartels where-ever they presented themselves.
The UK has a history of good and bad, this is no reflection on the country now, the culture, and definitely not the people. I do hope you won't attribute crimes many years old to those who haven't anything to do with them, instead looking to the present. Have a good day, and God save the Queen
Why doesn't the UK endeavours to clean the piles of trash accumulated on Henderson island?
What a lovely tour of tax havens, haha
The documentaries are all very nice, but these islands shouldn't be British, and Antarctica simply isn't theirs or anyone's.
Antarctica is not owned solely by Britain. It was rightly divided between the people that discovered the land. Without someone claiming it, who knows how many countries would take the opportunity to exploit it. It is territory used purely for science and is protected because of it, but whose to say another country wouldn't have used it for something else?
Saying that any of those islands shouldn't be British, is like saying America shouldn't be owned by Americans! Most, if not all, of the overseas territories that are populated, were populated by British settlers, and the unpopulated areas are protected from exploitation.
It was not rightly divided, because 1. it was not divided and 2. most claims are contested. The territory is used for science and stuff because of the Antarctica treaty, which suspends all claims to it, not because this or that other nation claimed it, since no one of the nations that claimed is better or more rightful in managing natural resources than any other on earth. When the treaty of Antarctica ends, if its not renewed, then we'll see if the UK and all the other "owners" of Antarctica really want it to continue unexploited. Let's see what happens. I just know one thing for sure: that land should not be owned by people from the other side of the world.
Just clarifying something: that land is not used because of an international treaty, not because of this or that other country's sovereign will. The UK isn't protecting anywhere from anything.
Now, the thing about the US is that it is different because they are a sovereign country, and, in the end of the day, if we go to the beginning of the world, most people ought to be expelled from where they are... no, this is beyond the point. The thing with British islands in the Atlantic is that they are either also claimed by other nations that are closer and have a good historical claim, which should not be denied, or they are simply should belong to countries closer by, preferentially in the South Atlantic. The fact that they belong to Britain isn't enough to make it rightful, and if we follow your argument, than no claim to any land ever is legitimate, except the first one ever... so one has to be political and acknowledge what is possible and what is right or wrong is a given situation. The UK keeping it's former colonies in the other side or the wrong is not right nor legitimate.
1.)*"it was not divided"* - It *was* divided, by eight official claims: Argentine Antarctica (Department of Tierra del Fuego, Antarctica, and South Atlantic Islands Province) 1942, Australian Antarctic Territory
(External dependent territory of Australia) 1933, Chilean Antarctic Territory (Commune of Antártica Chilena Province) 1940,
Adélie Land (District of the French Southern and Antarctic Lands) 1924, Ross Dependency (Dependency of New Zealand) 1923, Queen Maud Land (Dependency of Norway) 1939, Peter I Island
(Dependency of Norway) 1929, and British Antarctic Territory
(Overseas territory of the United Kingdom) 1908.
2.)*"most claims are contested."* - Anyone can contest a claim, that doesn't magically mean that the claim doesn't exist and isn't official.
3.)*"the Antarctica treaty, which suspends all claims to it"* - No acts or activities taking place while the present Treaty is in force shall constitute a basis for asserting, supporting *or denying a claim* to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica or create any rights of sovereignty in Antarctica. No *new* claim, *or enlargement* of an *existing claim* to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica shall be asserted while the present Treaty is in force. In other words, claims *can* be made and can not be denied, asserted, or supported.
4.)*"no one of the nations that claimed is better or more rightful in managing natural resources than any other on earth"* - I don't recall claiming that one country was/is better at managing natural resources than another. The rightful claim is the first one, as you say later on, the UK made the first claim to a piece of land therefore it is rightful and legitimate.
5.)*"When the treaty of Antarctica ends, if its not renewed, then we'll see if the UK and all the other "owners" of Antarctica really want it to continue unexploited."* - You really must turn that "When" to an "if", because it is highly unlikely that the Antarctic Treaty will end, it has 52 signatures, I highly doubt that is all going to be forgotten or disbanded any time soon or in the distant future. The Antarctic is too important.
6.)*"that land is not used because of an international treaty"* - The only things the treaty prohibits, is the military use of the land, nuclear explosions and the disposal of radioactive waste. It doesn't even state in the treaty that only Scientific research is allowed, it states that it guarantees continued *freedom* to conduct scientific research, and promotes international scientific cooperation. It doesn't once state that scientific research is the only thing that can take place.
7.)*"The UK isn't protecting anywhere from anything."* - Huh, that's funny, because I think you'll find that actually the British Antarctic Survey does a lot of work to protect the environment and wildlife in the area, even before the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (1991) was introduced. www.bas.ac.uk/about/antarctica/environmental-protection/
8.)*" the thing about the US is that it is different because they are a sovereign country"* - So are another 206, including the UK, how is America different? The USA has 16 overseas territories (although two are disputed), the UK has 14 (20 if you include the crown dependencies, although, they are self-governing). The British Overseas Territories are under the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the United Kingdom.
9.)*"if we go to the beginning of the world, most people ought to be expelled from where they are"* - So by *your* argument, everyone should live in Africa, the "cradle of humanity", and completely leave the rest of the world, just because "it is not ours to claim".
10.)*"they are either also claimed by other nations that are closer and have a good historical claim"* - Chile and Argentina made claims almost 30 years late, their claims are no where near as strong as the UK's, and how could they possibly have a greater historical claim, if the UK claimed it almost 30 years previous?
11.)*"they are simply should belong to countries closer by, preferentially in the South Atlantic"* - Any inhabited land would much prefer to be under the rule and protection of an MEDC with global influence, rather than an LEDC with problems it is already struggling to deal with on its own. I'm sure they'd prefer the more economically stable every time, an arrangement they actually benefit from. As for uninhabited land, I would much rather it be in the hands of a country that understands the importance of conserving the wildlife in that area, than in the hands of one that would much rather exploit it for the money they lack.
12.)*"The fact that they belong to Britain isn't enough to make it rightful"* - Actually, a lot of current inhabited overseas territories chose to remain under the rule of the UK through votes. Overseas territories that are inhabited are not forced to stay within the UK, and many benefit from the situation. For example, Pitcairn is one of the UK's inhabited overseas territories, they don't have to pay a single penny of tax, and they have gotten around £17.9 million since 2011, even though there are only 42 inhabitants on the small island. They have it better than the actual inhabitants of the island of the UK. So, while *you* might not think it is rightful, the inhabitants of the overseas territories aren't complaining about the situation at all.
13.)*"no claim to any land ever is legitimate, except the first one ever"* - I don't think you understand that the claim by the UK was the first one in that area. People didn't even know that Antarctica was land until the 1800's.
14.)*"one has to be political and acknowledge what is possible"* - In this day and age it has become even more possible to claim land than it was previously, so I'm failing to see what your argument is.
15.)*"what is right or wrong is (assuming you meant in) a given situation."* - What has the British Antarctic Survey done that is so horrific then? What has any of the countries of the claims done? What have they done wrong, especially in a situation where the land is uninhabited, how does the claiming of it make any negative difference to the land or its wildlife?
16.)*"The UK keeping it's former colonies in the other side or the wrong is not right nor legitimate."* - Not only was that an amazingly incoherent sentence, but how is the British claiming of land not legitimate?
1.) Countries claim it, but their claims are not recognized by other countries nor each other... thus, the land has not been properly divided, since people don't agree with the division.
2.) Anyone can contest a claim, surely, and anyone can make one two. Claiming one thing doesn't make you the owner, in the international sphere, if you don't either a. rule it (de facto) or b. are recognized in the world stage by pretty much everyone (de jure) none of which is true about the Antarctican claims.
3.) You just repeated what I said. CLAIMS ARE SUSPENDED, as I said, NOT REVOKED. The UK claims it, pretty much no one acknowledges this claim.
4.) You did claim the good management of natural resources is one of the reasons UK administration is good and no, first claim is not the only or an absolute base for claiming. There are several other bases and countries claim with different bases, such as geographical continuity, history, etc etc etc
5.) Did you know that one of the clauses of said treaty is an expiration date? If not renewed it WILL end.
6.) You are right, but I meant you can't use the land for economical purposes too (this is in fact correct) and this is the reason this region's nature is pretty much unscathed, not UK protection. Also, as you know, the treaty allow ALL COUNTRIES do conduct scientific research on the region, not only the claimers.
7.) Ok, they have a nice agency. What I meant is the obvious thing I just mentioned earlier: the reason the region boasts a prime nature is the non-development part of the Antarctica agreement, not UK policies that, obviously, do not REALLY, in fact, de facto apply in the region.
8.) I meant the mainland US. The US has its own load of land it should not own and that are pretty much contemporary colonies, like Puerto Rico, just to name the most famous, but also Guam. There is a lot of information and growing public awareness of that issue, I think.
9.) No, my argument is the opposite of that. My argument is that we have to take a pragmatical approach to claiming, not a first come, first serve approach.
10.) I meant other territories, when I said historical claim. But Chile's and Argentina's claim are more solid for simple reasons: geography and, yes, history, because the people's of these countries are closer economically and historically to Antarctica than the UK will ever be.
11.) So here is your wild-life conservation argument again, which as I just discussed (not true). Now, if people preferred to live in whatever kind of country the UK is rather than their own whatever kind of country, we'd not have had the colonial independences, then, would we? Anyway, geography also matters, not only political status.
12.) They chose because they are British settlers. Let the 200 million Indians enter the UK and, in 20 years, hold a referendum on any topic such as immigration or the relationship between the UK and India.
13.) I think you didn't see the word IF (IF IF IF IF) right before the part quoted.
14.) My point is: arguing your claim is rightful because it was the first is not pragmatical in the contemporary world.
15.) (typo, I am sorry, I did mean IN; I am sorry for the mistakes and hope the text is still understandable as a whole) I couldn't care less about British Antarctica; I did not make it clear, but here I was thinking about how OTHER countries will view this claims in the future... I don't know if you are aware of it, but China for one doesn't recognize any of these claims, and the USSR (Russia now, obviously) and the US " reserved themselves the right to make a territorial claim" in the future... so this area is not beyond contention, much to the contrary. As I said, contention is not seen only because the Antarctica treaty froze all claims.
16.) Firstly, I have a real curiosity: why was this sentence incoherent? (was it because I wrote it's instead of its or was it something else? btw where I wrote wrong I actually meant world. and or was supposed to be of. My mistake.) Please tell me so I can correct it. Secondly, just because you think having been the first to claim the lands makes it legitimate, as I said, we don't live in the 16th century anymore, so it doesn't work like that. It is illegitimate because these lands were acquired under controversial situations, namely, under British pressure, when half the world was made up of colonies and these couldn't defend their self-interests (nor could independent nations such as Argentina, because the main powers used to simply abuse their force).
This is the first and foremost reason why the UK's claims are not legitimate.
Just because an island is close to another country - it doesn't give that country a divine right to them.That's quite possibly the most piss poor logic I've come across in a while. The only islands the UK should return are The Chagos Archipelago. The Falklands are British and always have been - The UK having made the first claim and never renounced it, same goes for the South Georgia and The South Sandwich Islands - which even Spain never once claimed. All the territories in the Caribbean remain British territories by choice. No rival claims to St.Helena or Tristan Da Cunha. Gibraltar is legally owned by the UK but probably should be returned in exchange for their autonomy.
This video covers overseas breeds of animals on islands than that of geography. So bad.
British Indian Ocean territory ( Cegos Archipelago ) rightful owner is Mauritius. Return to their original Owner.
Nope.
@@gojimovedchannel1478 Soon We took from it
@@sonugoswami8720 how could one of the smallest country defeat one of the highly trained armed force country?? Remember the falklands war?
@@sonugoswami8720 that's what thieves and robbers do
Wrong, they were never part of an independent Mauritius which is over 2200km away. They were just jointly administered with Mauritius under British rule. The islands hold an important US/UK military base and should never be given to a CCP bootlicker like Mauritius.
Thou shalt not steal
Malvinas taken by England, belong to Argentina.
No it doesn't. England took Falklands before Argentina even became a thing stfu Argie
🤡
Ah yes , over 300 years old righfully british land even before argentina created is totally Spanish land that they gave to the Argentine
The Malvinas are in Lake Carrera and they belong to Chile. If you mean the Falklands, they were British before Argentina even existed as a country.