Chagos Islands dispute: UN backs end to UK control Watch

Themysticalegg
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#1
'The UN has passed a resolution demanding the UK return control of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius.
In the non-binding vote in the General Assembly in New York, 116 states were in favour and only six against, a major diplomatic blow to the UK.
Fifty-six states, including France and Germany, abstained.
Mauritius says it was forced to give up the Indian Ocean group - now a British overseas territory - in 1965 in exchange for independence.
In a statement to the BBC, the UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) said Britain did not recognise Mauritius' claim to sovereignty, but would stand by an earlier commitment to hand over control of the islands to Mauritius when they were no longer needed for defence purposes.'

'The US, Hungary, Israel, Australia and the Maldives were the states voting with the UK against the resolution.'

Should we keep the territory or give it back, what do you think?
Do you believe this shows a decrease in the influence of the UK on the rest of the world with such a decisive vote?

Source:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48371388
1
reply
Molseh
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 month ago
#2
We made a fair deal for it a long time ago and thus should keep it.

Regardless, it is far too important strategically to give it away.
0
reply
Zamestaneh
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 month ago
#3
Give the Islands back.
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 month ago
#4
I'm not normally in favour of giving land back without good reason, and in this case they were paid for it, and it was part of a deal agreed on both sides.

But...

The only benefit of keeping it seems to be for the military base, and the leader of Mauritius has already said the base can stay and remain just as operational as it currently is. So whats the point in keeping control?

Seems to me like the best solution is to sign a 100 year lease on the military base, and then hand control of the rest of the island back. presumably everyone is then happy.
1
reply
Molseh
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 month ago
#5
There is no "rest" of the island, the entire thing is a no-go zone for non-military personnel.
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
I'm not normally in favour of giving land back without good reason, and in this case they were paid for it, and it was part of a deal agreed on both sides.

But...

The only benefit of keeping it seems to be for the military base, and the leader of Mauritius has already said the base can stay and remain just as operational as it currently is. So whats the point in keeping control?

Seems to me like the best solution is to sign a 100 year lease on the military base, and then hand control of the rest of the island back. presumably everyone is then happy.
Fantastic argument.
(Original post by Zamestaneh)
Give the Islands back.
1
reply
mnot
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 month ago
#6
(Original post by Themysticalegg)
'The UN has passed a resolution demanding the UK return control of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius.
In the non-binding vote in the General Assembly in New York, 116 states were in favour and only six against, a major diplomatic blow to the UK.
Fifty-six states, including France and Germany, abstained.
Mauritius says it was forced to give up the Indian Ocean group - now a British overseas territory - in 1965 in exchange for independence.
In a statement to the BBC, the UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) said Britain did not recognise Mauritius' claim to sovereignty, but would stand by an earlier commitment to hand over control of the islands to Mauritius when they were no longer needed for defence purposes.'

'The US, Hungary, Israel, Australia and the Maldives were the states voting with the UK against the resolution.'

Should we keep the territory or give it back, what do you think?
Do you believe this shows a decrease in the influence of the UK on the rest of the world with such a decisive vote?

Source:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48371388
If every country had listened to the UN, and they did decent work i would say yes.
But the reality is US, China, Russia (try to but use air control more commonly) just plant their flag in huge swathes of ocean. We should delay restructuring talks and maintain short term control with the aim of keeping it for strategic purposes, its kind of **** for the locals, maybe a joint government could be agreed, where they operate it as they want but we keep judiciary ability and Ocean rights and have a permanent military settlement.
Last edited by mnot; 1 month ago
0
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 month ago
#7
No. The UN just a toothless organisation which is all talk.
0
reply
mnot
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 month ago
#8
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
I'm not normally in favour of giving land back without good reason, and in this case they were paid for it, and it was part of a deal agreed on both sides.

But...

The only benefit of keeping it seems to be for the military base, and the leader of Mauritius has already said the base can stay and remain just as operational as it currently is. So whats the point in keeping control?

Seems to me like the best solution is to sign a 100 year lease on the military base, and then hand control of the rest of the island back. presumably everyone is then happy.
I think its who owns the 'surrounding water' whilst a lease is good unless we have are flag in the ground no country would resect the UK's claim over the oceanic waters.
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 month ago
#9
(Original post by mnot)
I think its who owns the 'surrounding water' whilst a lease is good unless we have are flag in the ground no country would resect the UK's claim over the oceanic waters.
that's true, I hadn't thought of that.
0
reply
Zamestaneh
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 month ago
#10
(Original post by Molseh)
There is no "rest" of the island, the entire thing is a no-go zone for non-military personnel.

Fantastic argument.
I don't need to make an argument - the OP asked a question and I answered. I am anti-UK when it comes to international affairs on the most part, so is there even a point in me expounding upon my biases and beliefs?
0
reply
Molseh
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 month ago
#11
Of course you are.
(Original post by Zamestaneh)
I don't need to make an argument - the OP asked a question and I answered. I am anti-UK when it comes to international affairs on the most part, so is there even a point in me expounding upon my biases and beliefs?
0
reply
DarthRoar
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 weeks ago
#12
The UN has about as much say on the matter as my mum. Most of the important/big countries either voted with the UK or abstained anyway.
2
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 weeks ago
#13
(Original post by Themysticalegg)
'The UN has passed a resolution demanding the UK return control of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius.
In the non-binding vote in the General Assembly in New York, 116 states were in favour and only six against, a major diplomatic blow to the UK.
Fifty-six states, including France and Germany, abstained.
Mauritius says it was forced to give up the Indian Ocean group - now a British overseas territory - in 1965 in exchange for independence.
In a statement to the BBC, the UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) said Britain did not recognise Mauritius' claim to sovereignty, but would stand by an earlier commitment to hand over control of the islands to Mauritius when they were no longer needed for defence purposes.'

'The US, Hungary, Israel, Australia and the Maldives were the states voting with the UK against the resolution.'

Should we keep the territory or give it back, what do you think?
Do you believe this shows a decrease in the influence of the UK on the rest of the world with such a decisive vote?

Source:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48371388
Don't the US as opposed to us de facto control them now? Diego Garcia and all that.
(Original post by Molseh)
We made a fair deal for it a long time ago and thus should keep it.
We made a deal, i'm not sure you could call it fair though
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 weeks ago
#14
(Original post by DarthRoar)
The UN has about as much say on the matter as my mum.

Most of the important/big countries either voted with the UK or abstained anyway.
If we break your comment down we have an interesting answer. The UN doesnt matter until the ones with nukes bring their swinging dicks to the table
1
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 weeks ago
#15
It's never been part of the Mauritian state. If we're to propose restoring the old colony of Mauritius under its original boundaries, that would involve putting other islands, including an independent state (Seychelles) under their jurisdiction.

I do agree it was an abuse to throw out the inhabitants. Realistically, there's not much prospect of any of them returning to the islands in their lifetimes.

From a strategic point of view, I would think that democracies in the region really should recognise the importance of the military presence and the guarantees that the British territory status offers. Instead, I expect, for some it's a matter of national pride and for others it's placing notions about decolonialisation ahead of a realisation that this is a tiny-scale situation with wide-ranging benefits.
2
reply
Onde
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 weeks ago
#16
The UK should hand over the islands because it is the right to do, not because the UN says so.
0
reply
The RAR
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 weeks ago
#17
No, why should we? Our territory, we keep it, the UN can go suck itself
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 weeks ago
#18
(Original post by L i b)
I do agree it was an abuse to throw out the inhabitants. Realistically, there's not much prospect of any of them returning to the islands in their lifetimes.
I think none would be a more apt summation.
From a strategic point of view, I would think that democracies in the region really should recognise the importance of the military presence and the guarantees that the British territory status offers. Instead, I expect, for some it's a matter of national pride and for others it's placing notions about decolonialisation ahead of a realisation that this is a tiny-scale situation with wide-ranging benefits.
Technically wouldnt it be the Americans whom are offering "protection" (i question as to whom they are being 'protected' against though) after all, Diego Garcia might nominally be on British land but it sure as hell isnt ours.
I am curious as to what benefits you are referencing though?
0
reply
sridia
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 weeks ago
#19
I don't think that the island should be given to Africa, but there is a case for ensuring that the former residents of the island are given their rights.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by Napp)
I think none would be a more apt summation.

Technically wouldnt it be the Americans whom are offering "protection" (i question as to whom they are being 'protected' against though) after all, Diego Garcia might nominally be on British land but it sure as hell isnt ours.
I am curious as to what benefits you are referencing though?
I'm afraid I've not quite understood your question there. Broadly, I think it is beneficial for the security of the region, particularly the liberal democracies there, to have a US base on the islands and a United States with a reach and active role across the globe.

In terms of being British, it is I suppose as British as Lakenheath. It is a US base, but on an area of land where the UK holds sovereignty and exercises it. It is ultimately governed locally by its Resident Commissioner and British law is upheld by the BIOT Police.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What was the hardest A-level paper of 2019?

Edexcel Maths paper 1 (62)
21.31%
Edexcel Maths paper 2 (102)
35.05%
AQA Chemistry Paper 2 (62)
21.31%
Edexcel Maths Paper 3 (28)
9.62%
AQA Physics Paper 3 (37)
12.71%

Watched Threads

View All