Handing over the British Indian Ocean Territory
Discussion
The FO is apparently in advanced talks to handing over the British Indian Ocean Territory to Mauritius. DT link below:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/09/22/bo...
Boris J has been wrong about so much, but in my opinion he's right about this.
My questions are:
If we're serious about containing China, why are we handing a strategic asset to a Chinese ally?
What does the UK get in return for this? How is it to our advantage to do this?
I can see a moral obligation to hand it back to the exiled Chagosians, and I have no doubt some people will say that should trump all else. However, strategically it makes little sense (i.e. no sense) and if we continue to disburse our overseas assets you have to ask why we should be on the UN Security Council at all?
On top of that, if I was India I'd be very worried about this development.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/09/22/bo...
Boris J has been wrong about so much, but in my opinion he's right about this.
My questions are:
If we're serious about containing China, why are we handing a strategic asset to a Chinese ally?
What does the UK get in return for this? How is it to our advantage to do this?
I can see a moral obligation to hand it back to the exiled Chagosians, and I have no doubt some people will say that should trump all else. However, strategically it makes little sense (i.e. no sense) and if we continue to disburse our overseas assets you have to ask why we should be on the UN Security Council at all?
On top of that, if I was India I'd be very worried about this development.
gt_12345 said:
The FO can FO
Good to see you're adding the usual high-quality analysis to threads as usual. You do realise that the FO just implement whatever the current government determines.Anyway, to the point in hand. It's morally the right thing to do, AND it sounds like the future of the island as a military asset will continue. By doing this, it may actually keep the islands onside and friends of the West. For the islanders it might be good business, an active military base brings a lot of foreign currency into their economy.
Let's see what deal is agreed before declaring it a disaster.
tangerine_sedge said:
gt_12345 said:
The FO can FO
Good to see you're adding the usual high-quality analysis to threads as usual. You do realise that the FO just implement whatever the current government determines.Anyway, to the point in hand. It's morally the right thing to do, AND it sounds like the future of the island as a military asset will continue. By doing this, it may actually keep the islands onside and friends of the West. For the islanders it might be good business, an active military base brings a lot of foreign currency into their economy.
Let's see what deal is agreed before declaring it a disaster.
Also, what benefit is this to the UK? How are we advantaged by giving this away?
Iamnotkloot said:
The FO is apparently in advanced talks to handing over the British Indian Ocean Territory to Mauritius. DT link below:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/09/22/bo...
Boris J has been wrong about so much, but in my opinion he's right about this.
My questions are:
If we're serious about containing China, why are we handing a strategic asset to a Chinese ally?
What does the UK get in return for this? How is it to our advantage to do this?
I can see a moral obligation to hand it back to the exiled Chagosians, and I have no doubt some people will say that should trump all else. However, strategically it makes little sense (i.e. no sense) and if we continue to disburse our overseas assets you have to ask why we should be on the UN Security Council at all?
On top of that, if I was India I'd be very worried about this development.
I don't understand how we justified the ongoing existence of the permanent members anyway? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/09/22/bo...
Boris J has been wrong about so much, but in my opinion he's right about this.
My questions are:
If we're serious about containing China, why are we handing a strategic asset to a Chinese ally?
What does the UK get in return for this? How is it to our advantage to do this?
I can see a moral obligation to hand it back to the exiled Chagosians, and I have no doubt some people will say that should trump all else. However, strategically it makes little sense (i.e. no sense) and if we continue to disburse our overseas assets you have to ask why we should be on the UN Security Council at all?
On top of that, if I was India I'd be very worried about this development.
Both the UK and France both have under 1% of the world's population and a shade under 3% of global GDP.
Russia is engaged in a war that would doubtless see it thrown off the Security Council were it not a permanent member with power of veto.
The Chinese? Does an authoritarian regime with a woeful human rights record really deserve a place?
That just leaves the US. A country where 40% of people actually claim to believe in creationism!!!
Klippie said:
100% no, if its ours we keep it.
There is a war going on right now over sovereignty of land and we want to give some away, with our governments mentality it doesn't surprise me one bit.
It's not ours under international law though. We unlawfully detached the British Indian Ocean Territory from Mauritius and Seychelles then ejected the resident (commonwealth citizen) population in 1965.There is a war going on right now over sovereignty of land and we want to give some away, with our governments mentality it doesn't surprise me one bit.
Hill92 said:
Klippie said:
100% no, if its ours we keep it.
There is a war going on right now over sovereignty of land and we want to give some away, with our governments mentality it doesn't surprise me one bit.
It's not ours under international law though. We unlawfully detached the British Indian Ocean Territory from Mauritius and Seychelles then ejected the resident (commonwealth citizen) population in 1965.There is a war going on right now over sovereignty of land and we want to give some away, with our governments mentality it doesn't surprise me one bit.
Gecko1978 said:
So it is ours then since 1965 no one has fought us for it back so ots hours. Russia took crimea and now its long term owners are fighting for it back. International law only takes you so far same as Falklands. China still claim Taiwan but they will have to fight for it if they want it. So no let's not hand over territories
Mauritius have been taking legal avenues from UN General Assembly Resolution 2066 in 1965 to the International Court of Justice in 2019.Before the 1982 war, the Thatcher government was desperately trying to convince the Falkand Islands to accept a transfer of sovereignty to Argentina. But international law was and is on the side of the Falkland Islanders (and not the United Kingdom) who continue to express their right to self-determination by choosing to remain a British territory. We have denied that and other rights to the Chagossian islanders.
The days of 'Might is Right' should be behind us.
Hill92 said:
Gecko1978 said:
So it is ours then since 1965 no one has fought us for it back so ots hours. Russia took crimea and now its long term owners are fighting for it back. International law only takes you so far same as Falklands. China still claim Taiwan but they will have to fight for it if they want it. So no let's not hand over territories
Mauritius have been taking legal avenues from UN General Assembly Resolution 2066 in 1965 to the International Court of Justice in 2019.Before the 1982 war, the Thatcher government was desperately trying to convince the Falkand Islands to accept a transfer of sovereignty to Argentina. But international law was and is on the side of the Falkland Islanders (and not the United Kingdom) who continue to express their right to self-determination by choosing to remain a British territory. We have denied that and other rights to the Chagossian islanders.
The days of 'Might is Right' should be behind us.
Not sure what the point is to Mauritius if it remains a base for UK and US forces at some 1300 miles away from Mauritius. Or how Mauritius would plan to keep hold of it without it remaining a UK base.
Hill92 said:
The days of 'Might is Right' should be behind us.
Not sure if you've had a look around the world recently, but they aren't.tangerine_sedge said:
gt_12345 said:
The FO can FO
Good to see you're adding the usual high-quality analysis to threads as usual. You do realise that the FO just implement whatever the current government determines.Anyway, to the point in hand. It's morally the right thing to do, AND it sounds like the future of the island as a military asset will continue. By doing this, it may actually keep the islands onside and friends of the West. For the islanders it might be good business, an active military base brings a lot of foreign currency into their economy.
Let's see what deal is agreed before declaring it a disaster.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff