Britain gives up Chagos Islands

Sorry for misspelling -Chagos
Here is the link. (It’s a good little series.)
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0010gfz

I listen to a programme on the radio about Crawley and about its economic history - especially how interconnected that is Gatwick Airport. It included an interview with a family who had resettled from the Chaggosian Islands. I don’t think anybody wanted to go back and settle there, but they did want to able to visit and pay their respects to their predecessors. Hopefully, graves and other important sites are respected and maintained. Perhaps the UK could negotiate for some kind of arrangements that recognise this need for people to be able to acknowledge their forebears?

The military base should not be given up under any circumstances, particularly as the world is currently in turmoil and the axis of power seems to be shifting further East.

Currently Diego Garcia is not “critical” there is little activity, just maintenence. If China gained access it could be very significant strategically between Australia and Africa.
There is no reason why it could not be a tourism destination, there are many other places where tourism and military live side by side

As far as "rent" is an issue, it's because the US and UK consider the Diego Base as crucial, but it's the biggest island and civilians will not be allowed to use it.

This is for future use not reparations.

Are critical posters above prepared to relinquish this military base to save the money? We cant have it both ways

But discussions were going on for years - with the UK, Mauritius, and the US all involved. No "overnight" about the in principle issue.
Its come as a "surprise" only because it hasn't featured over the years in the press.

Freya5

Grantanow

The Tories started the negotiation to hand them over under Jimmy Dimly and now they are trying to accuse Starmer about it. Manufactured storm in a teacup.

One does wonder why Starmer and Lammy agreed to this seemingly overnight though, when negotiations hadn't been agreed. Still us plebs will never know, we'll only be the ones forking out for it.

It’s being said that Starmer wanted to get on with it in case Trump wins next month and becomes POTUS. 🤔

I read that the UK will be paying ‘rent’ to Mauritius for 99 years now. Further reparation?

I thought we were skint with a huge ‘black hole’ according to Reeves? Hence withdrawing the winter fuel allowance.

Steady in tiger

Grantanow

The Tories started the negotiation to hand them over under Jimmy Dimly and now they are trying to accuse Starmer about it. Manufactured storm in a teacup.

One does wonder why Starmer and Lammy agreed to this seemingly overnight though, when negotiations hadn't been agreed. Still us plebs will never know, we'll only be the ones forking out for it.

Maurice is a hugely popular holiday destination for the French. My neighbours are off there next month.

I’ve been to Mauritius a couple of times. It’s lovely as are the people who are a mix of Indian/ African descent with both French and English spoken. The food is amazing too as there is a lot of Indian and French influence. I’d recommend it for a holiday, as tourism is one of the main industries. It is not a rich country though as many of the population live in wooden and tin shacks and you see people at the side of the road selling a few vegetables. The British brought many of the Indian inhabitants to these islands as indentured labourers, not technically slaves but almost. China has a great deal of influence in Africa , and everywhere else, including the U.K. where the Chinese own the national grid and have ownership of parts of privatised utilities.

Or perhaps you are worrying about Anguilla; Bermuda; British Antarctic Territory (BAT); British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT); British Virgin Islands; Cayman Islands; Falkland Islands; Montserrat; Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands; Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha; South Georgia and the South

As well?

Why are Gibraltar or the Falklands relevant to this discussion in any way whatsoever?

Phillipe Sands KC is the Chief Legal Advisor for The Chagos Islands.

He is also just happens to be a friend of Sir Keir Starmer.

Let’s hope KS hasn’t got any legal friends in Gibraltar or Falkland Islands

Another technicality.

The Caribbean islands, including Jamaica, had an indigenous population, the Arawaks, who were destroyed by the diseases brought by the European 'conquerors and by being used as slaves by them...

Diego Garcia has been a major US Air and Naval base up to the gulf war, no doubt the airfield could be used for tourism travel, if the islands are repopulated they cannot be self sustaining without it. Mauritius needs to find a lot of money to develop them. The US is retaining the base to stop China getting control, militarily it’s not as needed as much, because satellites and missiles rather than manned aircraft have taken over the roles.
It was a thorn in the side Britain didn’t need and has been settled

The Tories started the negotiation to hand them over under Jimmy Dimly and now they are trying to accuse Starmer about it. Manufactured storm in a teacup.

MaizieD

Allira

The islands were unpopulated until the British took slaves there to work, who obviously were freed when slavery was outlawed. So there were no actual indigenous people of the Chagos Islands

Yes, I'd forgotten that.
And in fact, it was the French who first took the people there as slaves from Mozambique.

How long does it take for the artificially established population of a previously uninhabited island to become 'indigenous'?

Actually it was the French who first took slaves to the Chagos Islands, taking them from Africa and India to work on the their established copra plantations. Before the French arrived the islands were not inhabited.
www.biot.gov.io/

Well Jamaica was also populated by slaves originally, from around the same time period.

*I think pragmatically that is far back enough to establish rights to live where forefathers and mothers were living".

Ironically, Jamaica was given its independence in 1962, the year after the people of the Chagos Islands were forcibly moved.

As to who first brought the slaves there, in the West Indies as well as the Chagos Islands, there were continual skirmishes between France and Britain as to "ownership" of the islands, several changed hands more than once, the original slave population being imported by both at different points.

Again, pragmatically, we have to deal with whoever held/holds the remainder of Empires at the time of issues of independence or conflict, which is what is happening now.

Whats fascinated me today is the sudden shock horror press along the lines of "this means the Falklands are in danger".
No comparison.

Allira

^The islands were unpopulated until the British took slaves there to work, who obviously were freed when slavery was outlawed. So there were no actual indigenous people of the Chagos Islands^

Yes, I'd forgotten that.
And in fact, it was the French who first took the people there as slaves from Mozambique.

How long does it take for the artificially established population of a previously uninhabited island to become 'indigenous'?

X post growstuff

The islands were unpopulated until the British took slaves there to work, who obviously were freed when slavery was outlawed. So there were no actual indigenous people of the Chagos Islands

Yes, I'd forgotten that.
And in fact, it was the French who first took the people there as slaves from Mozambique.

MaizieD

On a technical point, Britain abolished the slave trade in 1807, but slavery itself wasn't abolished until 1833. The Chagossian slaves in 1814 remained slaves until emancipated in 1834.

I'm not sure why the fact that the Chagossians are descended from a population 'only' established, on an unpopulated land, since the late 18th C in any way diminishes their claim to be the native population and their desire to return.

You're right about the slave trade, but it was France which transported them.

I don't know why their claim should be any less valid either. It would be a dangerous path to go down, if people's claim on land has to go back many centuries.

On a technical point, Britain abolished the slave trade in 1807, but slavery itself wasn't abolished until 1833. The Chagossian slaves in 1814 remained slaves until emancipated in 1834.

I'm not sure why the fact that the Chagossians are descended from a population 'only' established, on an unpopulated land, since the late 18th C in any way diminishes their claim to be the native population and their desire to return.

Most countries have been invaded and/or ‘taken’ at some time in their history. Even the UK- actually, especially the UK. That was subject to many invasions over time. The way of mankind. Now it is China's turn. How the original inhabitants are treated varies, of course. Ask a Vietnamese person about the French !