17 ms·
UK suffers defeat in UN vote on Chagos Islands
- User23 7y agoIt's not really crushing unless it's the Security Council. The GA is just talk.
- netsharc 7y agoThe symbolism is telling though, US and UK used to be superpowers with diplomatic might, now countries are openly rejecting them.
- hayd 7y agoTime to give up on the UN. More and more irrelevant every day.
- onyva 7y agoReally? That’s what you take away from this? Never asked yourself what hell European countries still doing in places like this? Unfortunately it’s not actionable but the message is clear.
- kabwj 7y agoThey discovered and conquered these places a long time ago. Those places basically belong to them. That’s how it works.
- Doxin 7y agoEven if that is true which is rather debatable, is that how it should work? Just propagating the status quo isn't always the right thing to do.
- onyva 7y agoYour personal opinion? Moral judgment? International law... breitbart... where do you get this idea from, and what is the cut off line for this white-wash determinism?
- lamarpye 7y agoI don't know exactly where the line is, but I know the US/UK keeping the islands doesn't cross it.
- avs733 7y ago"discovered" How do you discover a place that people already are or know about? I'll give you a hint...you don't. You show up their, subjugate the locals, and claim your history as the history of civilization itself.
- hdfbdtbcdg 7y agoSo in this limited case no one was actually living there before.
- seszett 7y agoTo be clear, although it was already known by fishermen, this archipelago was not occupied by locals and was first settled by the European countries that deemed it a worthy endeavour (although mostly using slaves of course). European colonisation isn't rosy, but there is a lot of misinformation out there and things happened widely differently in different places. It's really far from being a simple "subjugate the locals and appropriate their lands" story everywhere.
- p1necone 7y agoI could murder you and take all of your property. It would basically belong to me. That's how it works.
- duxup 7y agoTo be clear there are places European countries have a presence and this issue doesn't come up like this so just "still doing in places like this" seems a bit of a simplification.
- kaisix 7y agoWhat would be the alternative to the UN ?
- dang 7y agoPlease don't post unsubstantive comments, let alone flamebait like this, to Hacker News. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- papaf 7y agoThis is a British source that describes why the Chagos islands are so contentious: https://politicsfirst.co.uk/editorials/britains-shame-the-ethnic-cleansing-of-the-chagos-islands/ https://politicsfirst.co.uk/editorials/britains-shame-the-et...
- onyva 7y agoThank you for the link.
- gedy 7y agoThat article is misleading, calling it ethnic cleansing of "indigenous peoples". These islands were uninhabited prior to European contact. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Garcia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Garcia
- ganeshkrishnan 7y agoNot 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.
- viraptor 7y agoThe 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)
- ganeshkrishnan 7y agoRegardless 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Chagossians
- tangue 7y agoThis 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.
- apasserby 7y agowait what?
- fourthark 7y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.io https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.io
- crowbahr 7y ago"After being questioned as a result of the interview, the British Government denied receiving any funds from the sale of .io domain names" So according to the linked article, no: .io names give nothing to Britain.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- raesene9 7y agosomeone must be getting it, and it's not the islanders... so it's either the UK government, or someone they sold/gave the rights to.
- inflatableDodo 7y agoIs worth noting here that the British Government denying recieving funds is not quite the same as the British Government not recieving funds.
- crowbahr 7y agoBased on cursory research the British government has refuted the claim that any money is given to them from .io domain registrations.
- duxup 7y ago>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?
- kaisix 7y agoAs 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 and it has sovereignty over the islands. can £4m compensate for the human rights violations on that scale ?
- duxup 7y agoWell 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.
- klipt 7y agoRéunion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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?
- sispeo 7y agoNo the folks there are happy to be French, enjoying the EU passport and French safety net.
- klipt 7y agoI'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?
- Tsubasachan 7y agoColonialism is a double edged sword. France now has a responsibility to those islands. The Netherlands has the same problem: a bunch of fairly useless Caribbean islands that were a good idea at the time but are an anachronistic leftover from a different past now. It would be criminal to just dump them now.
- seszett 7y agoWell, Réunion was not "annexed" either, it was settled by France while it was unpopulated and most people descend from settlers from France (to various degrees, as the population is very mixed). Its situation is probably comparable to the Azores. There has literally never been any sizable independence sentiment and it's unlikely to appear in the foreseeable future.
- lmm 7y agoWould it be colonialism isn't really the question. Would it be ethical? That's closer to the question, but really what's important is: what's the most ethical way forward starting from where we are now?
- 7y ago
- ilaksh 7y agoDoes 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.
- pc2g4d 7y agoI'd imagine this is the sort of situation where Mauritius uses this embarrassing (for the UK and US) defeat to pressure the UK/US for a lucrative base hosting agreement. There's little value to Mauritius themselves in having a massive naval complex on an isolated island, their economy can't sustain the sort of military that would benefit from it. Their best use of it would likely be to reestablish sovereignty and then "rent" it to "great powers" like the US/UK, Russia, China, India, etc.
- hudibras 7y agoMauritius has made it clear to the US that they do not intend to change the status of the base in any way. It will simply be on a Mauritian island instead of a UK island.
- ijuhoor 7y agoFull disclaimer: I am Mauritian and work in the UK. I am happy about the regognition in the UN and the ICJ’s decision even that it is quite late and a lot of Chagosians already suffered a lot. I would say the Mauritian Gov is interested in the fishing rights provided by the islands which is critical for us. I would like to see .io domain be given back to a Chagosian association and let them use the income from it. It could be used to develop transport to the island and resume coconut farming, fishing, tourism... I would like to see more pressure being applied to UK, because to be honest i don’t see them doing anything and just do like they always did so far, ignore ans delay any actions to be done there. Ps: the Gigaom acticle about it is great to understand the situation. Pss: the US has no need for a base there, their base in Bahrain and Qatar are much closer to their illegitimate war interests.
- briandear 7y ago> focusing dissatisfaction over its permanent seat on the UN security council. But China isn’t having dissatisfaction focused on it for their permanent seat? That’s rich. When China gives back Tibet, then perhaps we can talk about dissatisfaction about the U.K. on the Council.
- basementcat 7y agoI think China will “give back” Tibet when the USA “gives back” Indian Territories.
- tluyben2 7y agoI am not really interested in politics, but I am curious why countries abstain. They surely have an opinion; my countries (born in NL, live in ES) had NL abstain and ES vote against the UK. Now I can understand why Spain voted; a lot of people are of the opinion that UK left EU and they should suffer a lot for it. It's a underbelly thing but it's quite accepted here. They want Gibraltar and they want to see them (UK) suffer for what they messed up (opinions vary but even my most angry brexit voting friends of mine would not do that in a re-vote). That the Netherlands didn't vote is also not a surprise; our gov has no backbone (see MH shoot down/Russia/Olympics crap; same jellyfish still is the boss; he is smart but people want to see a lot more action, not just moving with the tides) and just tries to be everyone's friend. But France & Germany? That must be political but why? Is that because ties to UK/US or ?
- cs02rm0 7y agoopinions vary but even my most angry brexit voting friends of mine would not do that in a re-vote EU election polling may suggest otherwise. There's something slightly weird in UK politics where the media predominantly takes one side of a debate and then it seems to become socially unacceptable to be on the other side. The brand new Brexit Party look to be getting double the vote of any other party, yet other than of parents and in laws no one I know has offered up that they were on the leave side. Yet I could name maybe 100 people who have talked about being on the remain side. I've been brought up not to talk openly about politics anyway, but it seems a shame to me that there's a relatively silent majority. Anyway, fully agree with your post otherwise. It looks worse than Eurovision!
- pc2g4d 7y agoI think it's multiple things. First, they don't want to piss off their allies, the UK and US, by voting against UK occupation. Second, they may themselves have similar territorial arrangements and are concerned that this sets a precedent for use of the International Court of Justice to delegitimize such possessions.
- Leherenn 7y agoFrance has a few territories in a rather similar situation, and possibly the Netherlands as well. They probably don't want to anger the UK because they might need their support in the future if the same kind of vote happens to them, but at the same time, if they support the UK, a lot of countries will remember it and it could swing the vote against them. At this point the best game is not to play. For Germany, I do not know as they do not have overseas territories as far as I know. However, they are pretty keen on the UK staying in the EU, so that might be the reason.
- kaisix 7y agoAn interesting article about Australia’s Cocos Islands which was considered as an alternative to Diego Garcia https://thediplomat.com/2019/04/australias-cocos-islands-cannot-replace-americas-troubled-diego-garcia/ https://thediplomat.com/2019/04/australias-cocos-islands-can...
- tomohawk 7y agoDon't kid yourself that this is about the islander's claims. They are being used as human shields. Diego Garcia is a very strategic location. It will always be controlled by one of the great powers. Who would benefit most if the US were to leave? Who has the most to gain? Countries like China and Iran.
- tangue 7y agoTrue. And it's important not to over-estimate the value of this vote. France had been condemned by the UN for the return of the island of Mayotte to Comoros, New Caledonia is another example. And let's not talk about Palestine and Israel... UN votes have, in the best case, a symbolical value [1] https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/165500 https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/165500
- raesene9 7y agoI don't think that's necessarily true. The UK has acted badly here and the islanders should have a right to live on their native islands. Just because it would possibly help other powers, doesn't exclude the idea that the native islanders can legitimately want their homes back
- ptah 7y agothey are planning on putting it back with mauritius as it was before.
- dalbasal 7y agoWhat do people here think about thee role of the UN here? Without unanimity in the security council, there doesn't tend to be much action they can take. Even with the SC, the track record of reaching resolutions isn't great. In principle, it makes sense for there to be a formalized "community of nations" to express a decision. But, in terms of having a practical role that leads to resolving these kinds of issues... would it be better if they now aimed for a reperations/compromise solution? I can't see british sovereignty or US occupancy changing. Is the right thing now to leave chagosians with a recognized moral right, with no hope of exercising it in practice or to go for compromise? Just curious what people think.
- jopsen 7y agoThe UN isn't perfect, but this is still a pretty official slap in the face.
- thrower123 7y agoThe UN is precisely as powerful as the security council members make it. Most of them are increasingly loathe to bother with herding cats in the UN when its legitimacy is increasingly being undermined by corruption and hypocrisy. It's not quite reached League of Nations irrelevancy, but it isn't far off.