i wonder if you would like more to learn about the Chagos Archipelago from 1965 to this date .

In1965 UK decided to detach the Chagos archipelago from Mauritius .After one year both Uk and USA decided to create a military base which would last for 50 years . mauritius attained independence in 1968 . The islanders living in the archipelago were forcefully asked to leave . They were deported either to Mauritius or Seychelles .

The British Indian ocean Territory was enacted and thus nobody was allowed to enter the peninsula again .mauritius brought the case to British High Court where it was stipulated that nobody had the right to detach a population from their original land they occupied .However a Queen's Decree quashed the decision .

The Mauritian government did not sit quiet and brought the matter to several courts and last to the United Nations Organisation for its views .many countries took part in the debate and 94 countries voted in favour of Mauritius . However the UNO asked that the International Court of justice be asked to express its views .

This week International Court of Justice pronounced in favour of Mauritius and asked UK to leave the sooner the possible .i wonder if the base will be dismantled as further negotiations are possible between UK and Mauritius and the road map to follow .

We should hand it over and the yanks should leave too.

However the Yanks won't want to give up Diego Garcia, their military base incase those nasty Russians/commies try to take over the world again.

It's been in the newspapers over here Dave; I don't think you'll find anyone arguing against the decision.

Then again......some on here will argue that black is white just to seek attention. If they do, or rather when they do, just ignore them.

We should send our new aircraft carriers over to Mauritius to show them that we mean business.

The UK Foreign Office said: "This is an advisory opinion, not a judgement."
It added it would look "carefully" at the detail of the opinion, which is not legally binding.

I very much doubt the Americans will give up such a strategically important base and I'm almost certain the Brits won't be asking them to leave.

Only US base in the Indian Ocean, and one of the best natural harbours.

Interesting that its only an advisory opinion though.

Imperialist Britain has many sins to answer for, Dave. I hope The Chagos Archipelago is returned to a complete Mauritius but if the yanks are involved I wonkt be holding my breath for you.

Definitely a bit of colonialism that's not supported by geography; I mean The Maldives, India and Sri Lanka are all closer to Diego Garcia than Mauritius.

I am cynical about some of these. Mauritius (uninhabited until discovered by Europeans) wants Diego Garcia back (uninhabited until discovered by Europeans). I don't doubt it's anachronistic but I don't think other countries such as Mauritius act out of anything other than the same self-interest that Portugal, The Netherlands, France and Britain acted from.

Presumably the US will just rent the Island/air base from the new Landlord or is there an undertaking that the US will be asked to leave and the Islamd returned to civilian use. Third option would be to rent it to the Chinese

Chinese don't need it, they already have one on Sri Lanka and one in Djibouti (Not sure about the last one to be honest, but they defo have one on the african coast)

Interesting how they got those bases as well, basically lending a lot of money and not wanting it back as long as they could lease bases.

If global warming continues unabated, and like Mauritius, the Chagos islands are vulnerable, both from sea level rise and damage to the corals.

If we can hang on a few years there may be little left to talk about!

thatdberight wrote:Definitely a bit of colonialism that's not supported by geography; I mean The Maldives, India and Sri Lanka are all closer to Diego Garcia than Mauritius.

It’s a damn site nearer to Mauritius than the Falklands are to Britain.

Tricky Trevor wrote:It’s a damn site nearer to Mauritius than the Falklands are to Britain.

So, Mauritius should have the Falklands (another previously uninhabited place where the inhabitants of a nearby country, made up overwhelmingly of descendents of European immigrants/conquerors are unable to see the irony in demanding them 'back' purely on the basis they're only 300 miles away - a logic by which we should see the Union flag over Nantes, Galway and Dortmund tomorrow night)?

davemanu2000 wrote:...The British Indian ocean Territory was enacted and thus nobody was allowed to enter the peninsula again...

You need to apply in advance for the necessary permit but you can one easily enough and then visit by sailboat.

thatdberight wrote:So, Mauritius should have the Falklands (another previously uninhabited place where the inhabitants of a nearby country, made up overwhelmingly of descendents of European immigrants/conquerors are unable to see the irony in demanding them 'back' purely on the basis they're only 300 miles away - a logic by which we should see the Union flag over Nantes, Galway and Dortmund tomorrow night)?

I have no idea what Mauritius historical ties to Chagos are. My point was about geographical location.

I wish someone would forcibly remove me to the Seychelles.

Tricky Trevor wrote:I have no idea what Mauritius historical ties to Chagos are. My point was about geographical location.

Britain made it part of Mauritius in 1903, i believe. Not as long as we've had the Falklands but longer than Russia gave the Crimea to Ukraine.

Nothing is as straightforward as it seems.....