3 ms·

Positive for Mauritius, maybe. It's not clear that the Mauritian government would be any more likely to remove the US base there, and will instead be happy to

Positive for Mauritius, maybe. It's not clear that the Mauritian government would be any more likely to remove the US base there, and will instead be happy to just receive the rent that the US is currently paying the UK for it. One might also note that the Chagossians who lived in the British Indian Ocean Territory never actually owned any land there, nor were they self-sufficient in terms of food.[0] Also, the Chagossians were given[1] severance pay for their work there, and compensation for starting a new life in the Seychelles or Mauritius, back in the 1970s. Then, in the 1980s, the UK government paid out millions more in reparations[2], and this year the government offered them British citizenship too.[3] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagossians#Eviction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagossians#Eviction [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_expulsion_of_the_Chagossians#Removal_of_the_last_inhabitants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_expulsion_of_the_Chagos... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_expulsion_of_the_Chagossians#Compensation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_expulsion_of_the_Chagos... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/23/chagos-islands-descendants-can-apply-to-become-british-nationals https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/23/chagos-islands...

toyg 4y ago
It's still a step in the right direction, from both moral and practical perspectives, for what is a clear historical wrong. Among other things, it will lay responsibility for the status quo where it really resides, i.e. the US.
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  I think it's premature to say it would be a step in the right direction, unless Mauritius publicly promises that they would immediately evict the US base (turning down the rent payments and weakening the presence of a strategic ally in the region). From what I've read: "Although Mauritius wishes to gain sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago, its government, and that of its diplomatic supporter India, favor an American military presence there."[0] Also, the status of the British Indian Ocean Territory is not a clear historical wrong, or at least it's only wrong due to being a by-product of the original policy of colonialism. Legally speaking, "Council of Ministers [of Mauritius] confirmed agreement to the detachment of Chagos Archipelago"[1], so the objections to this policy are based on the fact that Mauritius was not fully independent from the UK at the time (and therefore under duress), and that a country can't legally be split in two unless both pieces agree (and no one asked the Chagossians specifically if they were happy with the arrangement). However, given the non-viability of the territory as a self-supporting entity, and assuming that Mauritius would not have wanted to support the unemployed population there after Britain closed the plantations, it's likely that much the same outcome would have happened even if all of our 21st century principles had been followed back in the 1960s. The only difference would have been that the Chagossians wouldn't have received their compensation, reparations, and British citizenship. [0] https://warontherocks.com/2021/07/overcoming-the-diego-garcia-stalemate/ https://warontherocks.com/2021/07/overcoming-the-diego-garci... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagos_Archipelago_sovereignty_dispute#Detachment_of_the_Chagos_Archipelago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagos_Archipelago_sovereignty...
  - toyg 4y ago
    > it's only wrong due to being a by-product of the original policy of colonialism Only or not only, it's wrong. > assuming that Mauritius would not have wanted to support the unemployed population As they say, "when you assume you make etc etc..." It's a silly assumption.
Tepix 4y ago
How is being self-sufficient in terms of food relevant? I think many countries are not.
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  Unlike a country, though, the island would not have been able to support itself economically once the plantation work had ended. It's a bit like a country supporting a whaling station on an island[0] and then later evacuating the island rather than continuing to pour resources in to maintain the presence of the now-unemployed workers. For additional context, I should point out that the UK government did worse things to an island much closer to home[1] (albeit an island without any human residents). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grytviken https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grytviken [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gruinard_Island https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gruinard_Island

toyg 4y ago

It's still a step in the right direction, from both moral and practical perspectives, for what is a clear historical wrong. Among other things, it will lay responsibility for the status quo where it really resides, i.e. the US.

dane-pgp 4y ago
I think it's premature to say it would be a step in the right direction, unless Mauritius publicly promises that they would immediately evict the US base (turning down the rent payments and weakening the presence of a strategic ally in the region). From what I've read: "Although Mauritius wishes to gain sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago, its government, and that of its diplomatic supporter India, favor an American military presence there."[0] Also, the status of the British Indian Ocean Territory is not a clear historical wrong, or at least it's only wrong due to being a by-product of the original policy of colonialism. Legally speaking, "Council of Ministers [of Mauritius] confirmed agreement to the detachment of Chagos Archipelago"[1], so the objections to this policy are based on the fact that Mauritius was not fully independent from the UK at the time (and therefore under duress), and that a country can't legally be split in two unless both pieces agree (and no one asked the Chagossians specifically if they were happy with the arrangement). However, given the non-viability of the territory as a self-supporting entity, and assuming that Mauritius would not have wanted to support the unemployed population there after Britain closed the plantations, it's likely that much the same outcome would have happened even if all of our 21st century principles had been followed back in the 1960s. The only difference would have been that the Chagossians wouldn't have received their compensation, reparations, and British citizenship. [0] https://warontherocks.com/2021/07/overcoming-the-diego-garcia-stalemate/ https://warontherocks.com/2021/07/overcoming-the-diego-garci... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagos_Archipelago_sovereignty_dispute#Detachment_of_the_Chagos_Archipelago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagos_Archipelago_sovereignty...
- toyg 4y ago
  > it's only wrong due to being a by-product of the original policy of colonialism Only or not only, it's wrong. > assuming that Mauritius would not have wanted to support the unemployed population As they say, "when you assume you make etc etc..." It's a silly assumption.

Tepix 4y ago

How is being self-sufficient in terms of food relevant? I think many countries are not.

dane-pgp 4y ago
Unlike a country, though, the island would not have been able to support itself economically once the plantation work had ended. It's a bit like a country supporting a whaling station on an island[0] and then later evacuating the island rather than continuing to pour resources in to maintain the presence of the now-unemployed workers. For additional context, I should point out that the UK government did worse things to an island much closer to home[1] (albeit an island without any human residents). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grytviken https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grytviken [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gruinard_Island https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gruinard_Island