Should the UK Give the Chagos Islands to Mauritius?

[brad465]

Split from this thread https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/when-will-it-all-go-wrong-for-the-tories-johnson.219414/

What's the betting Johnson will see this as a "Falkland's 2" situation, so will send a convoy to go get these islands back, get a poll surge, then call an election with a landslide victory:

Chagos Islands: Mauritian flag raised on British-controlled islands

The Mauritian government has led a trip to the disputed islands, which are controlled by Britain.

www.bbc.co.uk

The Mauritian flag has been raised for the first time on the Chagos Islands, an Indian Ocean archipelago controlled by Britain but claimed by Mauritius.
Mauritian PM Pravind Jugnauth described it as an "historic moment", saying it was time for the UK to cede control.
The event was the culmination of a trip to the islands organised by the Mauritian government.
The Foreign Office said the UK had "no doubt" as to its "sovereignty over the British Indian Ocean Territory".
The ceremony, led by the Mauritian ambassador to the UN, took place on the atoll of Peros Banhos, where a pre-recorded message from Mr Jugnauth was played. A flag was also raised on Salomon, a separate atoll.
Three UN bodies have ruled that the archipelago - more than 5,000 miles away from the UK - is part of Britain's old empire and should be handed to Mauritius.

The official reason given for the Mauritian government's excursion is to map reefs around the archipelago - but Mr Jugnauth described the visit as "the first time Mauritius has led an expedition to this part of its territory".
Mr Jugnauth said it was "a very emotional moment and a very historic time for us, because we are able to rule in our own territory".
He said if the flags were removed, it would be considered as provocation from the UK.

The Chagos islands' situation though is a bit more complicated than the Falkland's admittingly, given the UN rulings stating the UK need to give the islands to Mauritius.

 

[birchesgreen]

Knowing that lot they'll probably send the gunboats to the wrong ocean never mind island.

 

[Ediswan]

Knowing that lot they'll probably send the gunboats to the wrong ocean never mind island.

They could always ask the US Navy for directions. For those who don't know, the root cause of the current situation is the military base on Diego Garcia (not to be confused with Alfredo Garcia).

 

[Gloster]

If we can find anything to send. About a week ago all (yes, all) of our destroyer fleet was tied up: four in Portsmouth and two in Birkenhead. What with one thing and another, we will probably only be able to send the armoured steam rubber duck HMS Quackers.

 

[Typhoon]

If we can find anything to send. About a week ago all (yes, all) of our destroyer fleet was tied up: four in Portsmouth and two in Birkenhead. What with one thing and another, we will probably only be able to send the armoured steam rubber duck HMS Quackers.

Get Truss to talk tough, like she has with Putin. That will get them quaking in their boots and cowered into submission.

 

[nw1]

Knowing that lot they'll probably send the gunboats to the wrong ocean never mind island.

What's the betting Johnson will see this as a "Falkland's 2" situation, so will send a convoy to go get these islands back, get a poll surge, then call an election with a landslide victory:

Chagos Islands: Mauritian flag raised on British-controlled islands

The Mauritian government has led a trip to the disputed islands, which are controlled by Britain.

www.bbc.co.uk

The Chagos islands' situation though is a bit more complicated than the Falkland's admittingly, given the UN rulings stating the UK need to give the islands to Mauritius.

If the UN says we should give them to Mauritius, then presumably we should as they are a neutral and international body.

 

[MattRat]

What's the betting Johnson will see this as a "Falkland's 2" situation, so will send a convoy to go get these islands back, get a poll surge, then call an election with a landslide victory:

Chagos Islands: Mauritian flag raised on British-controlled islands

The Mauritian government has led a trip to the disputed islands, which are controlled by Britain.

www.bbc.co.uk

The Chagos islands' situation though is a bit more complicated than the Falkland's admittingly, given the UN rulings stating the UK need to give the islands to Mauritius.

It's even more complicated because according to the article, Mauritius has never actually owned the island. I think this could set a bad precedent for the UN deciding nation's fates for them. It'll start small of course, Falklands, Malta, Gibraltar, etc, but it's a slippery slope that could end in disaster.

 

[dosxuk]

It was fully considered part of Mauritius when that was a British colony too - we just didn't give the Chagos islands back when we decolonised Mauritius because we needed somewhere to stick a ruddy great US air base.

 

[XAM2175]

It's even more complicated because according to the article, Mauritius has never actually owned the island.

Except that it doesn't actually say that in the article. What it does say is:

It is half a century since Britain took control of the Chagos Islands from its then colony, Mauritius, and evicted the population of more than 1,000 people in order to make way for a US military base.

and

In 2020, following a ruling by the International Court of Justice, the UK government said it had "a long-standing commitment, first made in 1965, to cede sovereignty of the territory to Mauritius when it is no longer required for defence purposes".

The longer history is that the Chagos Archipelago was a dependency of the French colonial administration of Mauritius, both of which were acquired by the UK following the signing of the Treaty of Paris of 1814. In 1965 the UK split the Chagos Archipelago off from Mauritius and constituted it as the British Indian Ocean Territory, before granting independence to Mauritius and the rest of its dependencies.

The ruling by the International Court of Justice is that

• "at the time of its detachment from Mauritius" the "Chagos Archipelago was clearly an integral part of that non-self-governing territory";
• the United Kingdom's purported detachment of the Chagos Archipelago "was not based on the free and genuine expression of the will of the people concerned";
• and that the UK has "an obligation to bring to an end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible"

I think this could set a bad precedent for the UN deciding nation's fates for them. It'll start small of course, Falklands, Malta, Gibraltar, etc, but it's a slippery slope that could end in disaster.

 

[Typhoon]

It's even more complicated because according to the article, Mauritius has never actually owned the island. I think this could set a bad precedent for the UN deciding nation's fates for them. It'll start small of course, Falklands, Malta, Gibraltar, etc, but it's a slippery slope that could end in disaster.

Malta?

(The difference with the Falklands and Gibraltar is that the majority of the citizens are of British descent, in my understanding, so in a referendum are unlikely to vote for Argentine - or Spanish - sovereignty. No-one can ask the inhabitants of the Chagos Islands, because we evicted them - we clearly thought that there was a link to Mauritius because that is where we sent most of them. Since it has about 50 years ago, there will be some still alive to ask - I don't suppose there are many displaced Falkland Islanders or Gibraltarians still around.)

 

[MattRat]

Except that it doesn't actually say that in the article. What it does say is:

and

The longer history is that the Chagos Archipelago was a dependency of the French colonial administration of Mauritius, both of which were acquired by the UK following the signing of the Treaty of Paris of 1814. In 1965 the UK split the Chagos Archipelago off from Mauritius and constituted it as the British Indian Ocean Territory, before granting independence to Mauritius and the rest of its dependencies.

The ruling by the International Court of Justice is that

• "at the time of its detachment from Mauritius" the "Chagos Archipelago was clearly an integral part of that non-self-governing territory";
• the United Kingdom's purported detachment of the Chagos Archipelago "was not based on the free and genuine expression of the will of the people concerned";
• and that the UK has "an obligation to bring to an end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible"

Then isn't that the responsibility of France? Since they made the original agreement. And if they have an issue with us breaking it., surely they can just discuss it with us, instead of the UN having to get involved.

 

[dosxuk]

Then isn't that the responsibility of France? Since they made the original agreement.

Mauritius was a French colony, with responsibility for the Chagos Islands. We took over that colony from the French, with Mauritius retaining responsibility for the Chagos Islands. When it came to us decolonising Mauritius, 100+ years later, we decided we didn't want to give up the Chagos Islands as we owed the Americans and it was a good location for a US base, so we kicked all the residents out to Mauritius and told them to look after them. Up until we were actively looking to decolonise the area, everyone considered the Chagos islands as part of Mauritius. Not only that, but we've maintained that we'll give the islands back to the Mauritians when we're finished with them.

Not really sure how you can claim any of this is the responsibility of France?

And if they have an issue with us breaking it., surely they can just discuss it with us, instead of the UN having to get involved.

They talked to us, we told them to go away. Repeatedly. So they complained to the UN. The UN talked to us, we told them to go away. Repeatedly. So the UN took us to the International Court of Justice, who then decided against the UK claim to the islands. Since then, several international groups have decided against the UK's claim to the islands, and we've ignored all of them.

 

[MattRat]

Mauritius was a French colony, with responsibility for the Chagos Islands. We took over that colony from the French, with Mauritius retaining responsibility for the Chagos Islands. When it came to us decolonising Mauritius, 100+ years later, we decided we didn't want to give up the Chagos Islands as we owed the Americans and it was a good location for a US base, so we kicked all the residents out to Mauritius and told them to look after them. Up until we were actively looking to decolonise the area, everyone considered the Chagos islands as part of Mauritius. Not only that, but we've maintained that we'll give the islands back to the Mauritians when we're finished with them.

Not really sure how you can claim any of this is the responsibility of France?

They talked to us, we told them to go away. Repeatedly. So they complained to the UN. The UN talked to us, we told them to go away. Repeatedly. So the UN took us to the International Court of Justice, who then decided against the UK claim to the islands. Since then, several international groups have decided against the UK's claim to the islands, and we've ignored all of them.

The French are involved becuase of the original treaty that we allegedly (innocent until proven guilty) broke. Of course, if we ignored the French, it is their choice to go to the UN to try and solve the matter. I apologise if I got the wrong end of the stick as I didn't have all he information on hand.

 

[AlterEgo]

The UK doesn’t gain a strategic advantage by giving them back so it won’t happen.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm sure we'd happily cede the islands tomorrow, but the Americans would twist our arm because the air base is so important strategically.

 

[181]

I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that the main island is leased to the USA as a military base, so the UK can't just hand it back to Mauritius or the former inhabitants -- or if it tried to, the Americans would put a stop to the idea.

(I see that yorksrob has just made a similar point).

 

[Ediswan]

I'm sure we'd happily cede the islands tomorrow, but the Americans would twist our arm because the air base is so important strategically.

There are air force units present, but it is a naval base: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Support_Facility_Diego_Garcia

 

[DarloRich]

Should the UK Give the Chagos Islands to Mauritius?

no - they are ours. We stole them fair and square.

 

[XAM2175]

The French are involved becuase [sic] of the original treaty that we allegedly (innocent until proven guilty) broke. Of course, if we ignored the French, it is their choice to go to the UN to try and solve the matter. I apologise if I got the wrong end of the stick as I didn't have all he information on hand.

You're still wrong.

There's no allegation that the UK has violated the treaty with France, because that's not the issue. The treaty is only relevant insofar as it establishes how those particular French colonies came to be British colonies.

The problem in entirely within the fact that Britain wronged Mauritius and the Chagossian people when it separated the Chagos islands from Mauritius and expelled the resident Chagossian people. Britain has already been found guilty of this by the ICJ.

 

[Bevan Price]

Ideally they should go to Mauritius, but USA will probably seize Diego Garcia them if UK tried that.
However, it is probably only a short term situation, as global warming, and sea level rising will probably submerge, or wash away, much of the land mass in the islands within the next century.

 

[najaB]

I'm sure we'd happily cede the islands tomorrow, but the Americans would twist our arm because the air base is so important strategically.

This, exactly. As long as the Americans want Diego Garcia the UK isn't going to cede the islands (back) to Mauritius. I suppose a solution might be for the USA and Mauritius to agree lease terms for if/when the islands are ceded. How happy they would be to have people on the other islands as opposed to the current arrangement is another question.

There are air force units present, but it is a naval base: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Support_Facility_Diego_Garcia

Ironically, there are more Air Force / Space Force personnel based there than Navy. Or at least there used to be.

There are also a lot of ghosts (you didn't see anything) based there. Allegedly.

 

[yorksrob]

This, exactly. As long as the Americans want Diego Garcia the UK isn't going to cede the islands (back) to Mauritius. I suppose a solution might be for the USA and Mauritius to agree lease terms for if/when the islands are ceded. How happy they would be to have people on the other islands as opposed to the current arrangement is another question.

Ironically, there are more Air Force / Space Force personnel based there than Navy. Or at least there used to be.

There are also a lot of ghosts (you didn't see anything) based there. Allegedly.

There are various potential solutions if all sides are willing to compromise. Off the top of my head, the Chagos islanders could be allowed to move back to the island away from the base as British or US citizens.

The island could be ceded to Mauritius with the base zone remaining sovereign to the US, as with the UK bases on Cyprus.

Both of these would be preferable to the current situation.

 

[Gloster]

There are various potential solutions if all sides are willing to compromise. Off the top of my head, the Chagos islanders could be allowed to move back to the island away from the base as British or US citizens.

The island could be ceded to Mauritius with the base zone remaining sovereign to the US, as with the UK bases on Cyprus.

Both of these would be preferable to the current situation.

One problem is that Diego Garcia is the only large island in the Chagos and makes up over half of the total land area. Most of the other islands are pretty small. However, the US military does not appear to want anybody other than their own forces, contractors and the token British presence on the island.

 

[yorksrob]

One problem is that Diego Garcia is the only large island in the Chagos and makes up over half of the total land area. Most of the other islands are pretty small. However, the US military does not appear to want anybody other than their own forces, contractors and the token British presence on the island.

Which does seem a somewhat inflexible position. From the map, it does look like a reasonably large island with the base confined to a distinct area.

 

[gordonthemoron]

Yes, obviously

 

[najaB]

Which does seem a somewhat inflexible position. From the map, it does look like a reasonably large island with the base confined to a distinct area.

Due to aforementioned ghosts (you didn't see anything), the US are rather fond of the idea of the islands being completely uninhabited (outside of the base). It makes it a lot easier to figure out who is potentially a spy: basically, shoot anything that moves.

 

[yorksrob]

Due to aforementioned ghosts (you didn't see anything), the US are rather fond of the idea of the islands being completely uninhabited (outside of the base). It makes it a lot easier to figure out who is potentially a spy: basically, shoot anything that moves.

Indeed, but I'm sure you could say that about everywhere !

 

[najaB]

Indeed, but I'm sure you could say that about everywhere !

Yeah. Their most secure facilities typically have a perimeter that is substantially larger than the operational base. For example, the restricted area around Groom Lake is something like 25x35 miles where the active base is less than 6x10 miles.