Does this mean that people can return to those islands?
Certainly seems unlikely they would close the military base unless they were forced to so do by some military or substantial economic action.
This type of thing is what makes me worried about the long term sustainability of US security. The paradigm is not really rule of law when it comes right down to it, it's might makes right. This is an inherently insecure paradigm.
Whether there can actually ever be a different paradigm seems difficult though.
Not true at all. Diego Garcia is just one island among these Archipelago and it was always inhabited by the native creole-speaking "Chagossians". UK evicted them forcefully in the 70's or 80's I think.
The way I understand what I've found is, the islands were not inhabited before the Europeans arrived there, and "Chagossians" weren't native. They were brought in as slave workers after the settlement. (Then, the population expanded with voluntary migration)
Regardless of their ancestry timeline, the natives have known to have been living there for at least three centuries. Expelling them now is cruel and unwarranted.
>The UK retained possession of the Chagos archipelago after Mauritius gained independence in 1968, effectively paying Mauritius more than £4m for the islands. Is the idea here that this deal was unfair?
As I understand, there were 2 main issues (1) sovereignty over the Chagos islands (2) the int'l human rights issue because of the forced exile of the natives. The natives are not allowed to return to the archipelago because of the US military base in Diego Garcia, Mauritius argued that it leased the land to the UK and the UK sub-leased it to the US. On the other hand, UK said the archipelago is a British territory an…
Well that was the price a while back but:
>The UK recently set aside £40m for exiled Chagossians who live mainly in the UK, Seychelles and Mauritius. Relatively little has been spent so far because programmes are being developed.
Not to say that automatically resolves anything of course.
The way I understand what I've found is, the islands were not inhabited before the Europeans arrived there, and "Chagossians" weren't native. They were brought in as slave workers after the settlement. (Then, the population expanded with voluntary migration)
Regardless of their ancestry timeline, the natives have known to have been living there for at least three centuries. Expelling them now is cruel and unwarranted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Chagossians
> Sir Bruce Greatbatch, KCVO, CMG, MBE, governor of the Seychelles, ordered all the dogs on Diego Garcia to be killed. More than 1000 pets were gassed with exhaust fumes. "They put the dogs in a furnace where the people worked", Lisette Talatte, in her 60s, told me, "and when their dogs were taken away in front of them our children screamed and cried". Sir Bruce had been given responsibility for what the US called "cleansing" and "sanitising" the islands; and the killing of the pets was taken by the islanders as a warning.
This is why you shouldn't use .io domains. It sounds cool but you're indirectly sponsoring a military base where people were tortured and because of which people were deported.
The way I understand what I've found is, the islands were not inhabited before the Europeans arrived there, and "Chagossians" weren't native. They were brought in as slave workers after the settlement. (Then, the population expanded with voluntary migration)
Regardless of their ancestry timeline, the natives have known to have been living there for at least three centuries. Expelling them now is cruel and unwarranted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Chagossians
What do you mean by "natives"? It's often used for the first people - and as weird as it is in this case, by that definition Europeans were the natives on that island. If we ignore the timeline, then does Dubai become natively Indian?
This does not mean I disagree with the expelling being cruel and unwarranted. I do think it shouldn't belong to the UK, just don't think that "natives" is meaningful here or explains the reasons.
Regardless of their ancestry timeline, the natives have known to have been living there for at least three centuries. Expelling them now is cruel and unwarranted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Chagossians
What do you mean by "natives"? It's often used for the first people - and as weird as it is in this case, by that definition Europeans were the natives on that island. If we ignore the timeline, then does Dubai become natively Indian? This does not mean I disagree with the expelling being cruel and unwarranted. I do think it shouldn't belong to the UK, just don't think that "natives" is meaningful here or explains th…
I used to term natives to refer to people who have been living here for centuries and have made it their home.
The equivalent is expelling everyone from Australia because US/UK wants to build military base there.
Réunion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Réunion is much closer to Mauritius and claimed by France, I wonder if that's why France abstained on the vote?
No the folks there are happy to be French, enjoying the EU passport and French safety net.
I'm sure a bunch of people in third world countries would be happy to have US/EU passports, but it would still be colonialism for US/European countries to annex them, wouldn't it?