UK suffers defeat in UN vote on Chagos Islands(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
UK suffers defeat in UN vote on Chagos Islands
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/22/uk-suffers-crushing-defeat-un-vote-chagos-islands
90 コメント
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.
wait what?
"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.
So according to the linked article, no: .io names give nothing to Britain.
someone 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.
Is worth noting here that the British Government denying recieving funds is not quite the same as the British Government not recieving funds.
[deleted]
Based on cursory research the British government has refuted the claim that any money is given to them from .io domain registrations.
That's an answer to a question in the House of Lords. It needs to be read between the lines. Government doesn't effectively receive anything but according to the second article cited by Wikipedia, Paul Kane, who originally runned the .io domain said that the Crown Bank was receiving money :
"In a second conversation with Kane, he reiterated that “we do remit money to the Crown bank in accordance with our agreement. We pay X amount per name.” Kane did not say what “X amount” was, due to confidentiality."
Meanwhile it seems that in 2017 Affilias has bought the .io domain for 70 millions dollars...
"In a second conversation with Kane, he reiterated that “we do remit money to the Crown bank in accordance with our agreement. We pay X amount per name.” Kane did not say what “X amount” was, due to confidentiality."
Meanwhile it seems that in 2017 Affilias has bought the .io domain for 70 millions dollars...
Well whoever's getting the money, it's not the indigenous islanders who should be getting it.
>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?
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 and it has sovereignty over the islands.
can £4m compensate for the human rights violations on that scale ?
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 ?
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 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.
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.
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.
I'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.
Mauritius 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.
Full 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.
What I don't understand is why the Chagossians can't return to the islands even if the US base remains. Looking at the islands on Google Maps it appears that the western half of Diego Garcia atoll is mostly uninhabited and could be used to resettle them, and there are other islands besides. We are talking about a thousand or so people—there's enough space for that many.
This is a British source that describes why the Chagos islands are so contentious:
https://politicsfirst.co.uk/editorials/britains-shame-the-et...
https://politicsfirst.co.uk/editorials/britains-shame-the-et...
That 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
Given that Madagascar was seemingly settled by Polynesians, I'd be amazed if Europeans and their slaves were actually the first ever inhabitants of Chagos, but that aside, if they were, then the Chagossian descendents of those first slaves would be, by definition, the indigenous people of the Chagos Islands.
Edit - and will people stop buying .io domains. They might look cool but it is straight up theft.
https://www.thewebmaster.com/hosting/2016/feb/27/io-tld-top-...
https://gigaom.com/2014/06/30/the-dark-side-of-io-how-the-u-...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-ac...
Edit - and will people stop buying .io domains. They might look cool but it is straight up theft.
https://www.thewebmaster.com/hosting/2016/feb/27/io-tld-top-...
https://gigaom.com/2014/06/30/the-dark-side-of-io-how-the-u-...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-ac...
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.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Chagossians
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.
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.
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.
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.
The equivalent is expelling everyone from Australia because US/UK wants to build military base there.
It is staggering to hear arguments justifying occupied land that has absolutely no connection to the uk. It shows how poorly the west still understands the evil of colonialism.
Regardless of the ancestry of the people living in any territory, they deserve to have sovereignty over their lives.
Regardless of the ancestry of the people living in any territory, they deserve to have sovereignty over their lives.
Err, we did actually pay for it.
And what connection do the "natives" have, they weren't native to it. They'd lived there less than 200 years and were French speakers.
It's not an indigenous population.
It's more complicated than you claim.
I'm pretty strongly anti-colonial, but this ain't that and it takes the piss to frame it like it is.
And what connection do the "natives" have, they weren't native to it. They'd lived there less than 200 years and were French speakers.
It's not an indigenous population.
It's more complicated than you claim.
I'm pretty strongly anti-colonial, but this ain't that and it takes the piss to frame it like it is.
how many generations of people have to live somewhere to be considered "native" then.
In this case we're talking what 4-5 generations, depending on how you count it, that sounds fairly native to me.
The UK acted poorly here and the pressure that this vote applies to them is good, as if anyone has a right to the islands it's the people who lived there for hundreds of years.
In this case we're talking what 4-5 generations, depending on how you count it, that sounds fairly native to me.
The UK acted poorly here and the pressure that this vote applies to them is good, as if anyone has a right to the islands it's the people who lived there for hundreds of years.
So when do we get to stop wringing our hands about the Israelis?
They've been there well over 100 years now, settlement by the Israelis started in the 1870s. Are they now native?
It's never going to be an easy thing to resolve. Ultimately, if you settle someone else's sovereign land, don't be surprised if you don't get to just claim it unless you've got the guns, tanks and bombers to back it up.
They've been there well over 100 years now, settlement by the Israelis started in the 1870s. Are they now native?
It's never going to be an easy thing to resolve. Ultimately, if you settle someone else's sovereign land, don't be surprised if you don't get to just claim it unless you've got the guns, tanks and bombers to back it up.
I'm not sure what the connection here is to the Israeli situation, an entirely different and also complex situation.
Here the UK government acted unethically and (according to the UN) illegally in displacing people who had been resident on these islands for a long time.
That pressure is being brought to bear on them for this, seems like a good thing.
Here the UK government acted unethically and (according to the UN) illegally in displacing people who had been resident on these islands for a long time.
That pressure is being brought to bear on them for this, seems like a good thing.
Predominantly white colonials buying Palestinian land, forming an independent state and then kicking out all the indigenous people.
You can't see the connection? At all?
I don't see what the point is in discussing this with you, some how you've decided that land bought and paid for should be given back to a people that didn't even come from there past a handful of generations.
And somehow this is 'ethical'.
What a load of nonsense.
I would point out that there were a huge number of abstentions. So don't think the UN were unanimous on this.
You can't see the connection? At all?
I don't see what the point is in discussing this with you, some how you've decided that land bought and paid for should be given back to a people that didn't even come from there past a handful of generations.
And somehow this is 'ethical'.
What a load of nonsense.
I would point out that there were a huge number of abstentions. So don't think the UN were unanimous on this.
So the Chagosian situation didn't have individuals buying land, it was a state (the UK) insisting on a deal to a much less powerful nation and then evicting all the citizens by force.
It's relatively clear from the wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagos_Archipelago_sovereignty...) that the government of Mauritius were under the impression that their being granted independence from the UK depended on their agreeing to hand over the Chagos Islands
the key quote from British records being
"in theory, there were a number of possibilities. The Premier and his colleagues could return to Mauritius either with Independence or without it. On the Defence point, Diego Garcia could either be detached by order in Council or with the agreement of the Premier and his colleagues. The best solution of all might be Independence and detachment by agreement, although he could not of course commit the Colonial Secretary at this point."
To quote the BBC (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48371388) "Mauritius says it was forced to give up the Indian Ocean group"
The UK has a long history of gunboat diplomacy, this is just one example I would suggest.
As to the "huge number of abstentions", the vote was 116-6 of those that voted, not exactly a close outcome...
It's relatively clear from the wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagos_Archipelago_sovereignty...) that the government of Mauritius were under the impression that their being granted independence from the UK depended on their agreeing to hand over the Chagos Islands
the key quote from British records being
"in theory, there were a number of possibilities. The Premier and his colleagues could return to Mauritius either with Independence or without it. On the Defence point, Diego Garcia could either be detached by order in Council or with the agreement of the Premier and his colleagues. The best solution of all might be Independence and detachment by agreement, although he could not of course commit the Colonial Secretary at this point."
To quote the BBC (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48371388) "Mauritius says it was forced to give up the Indian Ocean group"
The UK has a long history of gunboat diplomacy, this is just one example I would suggest.
As to the "huge number of abstentions", the vote was 116-6 of those that voted, not exactly a close outcome...
yes, USA should give Alaska and Hawaii to the local people
Well, principally yes. Or, at least, the US could acknowledge the massive genocide that European settlers have committed in the past, rather than glorifying the "good ol' days" of expansion and slaughtering people and their cattle, and give the indigenous people some real recompensation for the atrocities that have been done to their ancestors.
If you'd suggest the USA might give Alaska and Hawaii back to indigenous populations, what about the entire USA itself? :-D
Thank you for the link.
What 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.
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.
The UN isn't perfect, but this is still a pretty official slap in the face.
The 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.
It's not quite reached League of Nations irrelevancy, but it isn't far off.
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?
Colonialism 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.
It would be criminal to just dump them now.
Well, 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.
There has literally never been any sizable independence sentiment and it's unlikely to appear in the foreseeable future.
Would 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?
It had it's own adventures with colonialism apparently https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/16/france-reunion... just not at the same scale as Chagos.
I 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 ?
opinions 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!
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!
I 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.
France 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.
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.
For France, it is even more sensitive as we are in the process of giving some of these territories more rights or simply full independence. This is a long and painful process for all the involved parties anyway because you dig again in the past often violent history of the territories.
Evil of the past should never be ignored. No point of overthinking and being too emotional about it, but there are good lessons to be learned there
UN votes like these are a function of timing as much as of the actual content. Delegations trade votes to gain support in this or that ongoing issue, at the UN and elsewhere.
It just so happens that 1) the UK, thanks to Brexit, has basically lost all influence it had on other EU countries. EU members are more interested in gathering support on key votes in Bruxelles and Strasbourg; but the UK now cannot “trade” anything of that sort. 2) Again because of more and more stuff being cleared at EU level, the US has less and less to “sell” to individual member states. This goes double when the current administration is unabashedly isolationist, protectionist, and downright warmongering on trade issues, giving a first-line position to the likes of John Bolton who actively despise the UN and everything it stands for.
UK and US are currently isolated at the diplomatic level in ways unseen since WWII. The best they can expect from European countries, even when they share actual interests (like on decolonisation) is the occasional abstention. I expect we will see more and more similar votes coming to pass, in the next two years.
It just so happens that 1) the UK, thanks to Brexit, has basically lost all influence it had on other EU countries. EU members are more interested in gathering support on key votes in Bruxelles and Strasbourg; but the UK now cannot “trade” anything of that sort. 2) Again because of more and more stuff being cleared at EU level, the US has less and less to “sell” to individual member states. This goes double when the current administration is unabashedly isolationist, protectionist, and downright warmongering on trade issues, giving a first-line position to the likes of John Bolton who actively despise the UN and everything it stands for.
UK and US are currently isolated at the diplomatic level in ways unseen since WWII. The best they can expect from European countries, even when they share actual interests (like on decolonisation) is the occasional abstention. I expect we will see more and more similar votes coming to pass, in the next two years.
I'm sure that Spain would vote against the UK irrespective of Brexit. If you have some territory illegally occupied by the British in your very country, it's obvious that you are going to vote against the British occupying territory elsewhere. It's coherent with Spanish foreign policy for many decades, from far before Brexit was even a talking point.
I haven't noticed any will of the Spanish government to punish the UK for Brexit. That might be an opinion of laypeople, but not of the government as far as I know. In fact, I think Spain was the first country to sign an agreement so that the British can keep entering the country without a visa after Brexit, as long as there is reciprocity.
I haven't noticed any will of the Spanish government to punish the UK for Brexit. That might be an opinion of laypeople, but not of the government as far as I know. In fact, I think Spain was the first country to sign an agreement so that the British can keep entering the country without a visa after Brexit, as long as there is reciprocity.
Gibraltar isn’t illegally occupied, that said Spain has always been stuck between a rock and a hard place since they have their own walled off enclaves in Morocco and they also have problems with independence movements internally with both Catalonia and the Basques claiming independence to various degree.
This is why regardless of how much Spain wants to push the UK to secede Gibraltar they can’t push too hard.
The Netherlands have the same problem they also have remote territories under their control so again they can only abstain.
This is why regardless of how much Spain wants to push the UK to secede Gibraltar they can’t push too hard.
The Netherlands have the same problem they also have remote territories under their control so again they can only abstain.
That would perhaps be a bit hypocritical of Spain given their own enclaves like Melilla and Ceuta in Morocco - both of which are claimed by Morocco?
There are subtle differences. Gibraltar was Spanish before The Utrech Treaty, that even included some expiration date IIRC. Ceuta and Melilla were Spanish towns before Morocco even existed. Not that it will matter in the long run...
I’m not sure there is an expiration date. Wikipedia (so pinch of salt) has the text as reading that Spain ceded to Great Britain:
“the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging ... for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever.”
“the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging ... for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever.”
That's right, I got confused with something else.
Apart from the expiration date issue, the British unilaterally extended their territory taking more land than they were assigned by the Utrecht treaty, several times. Sometimes using such scummy techniques as asking the Spanish government for permission to temporarily built sick houses outside their border during a cholera outbreak, and when the outbreak was over... they just kept that territory.
To be honest, I'm not a patriot by any means and I do think that Ceuta and Melilla will probably need to be handed to Morocco at some point, as enclaves in general don't make much sense. But the situation is not even remotely comparable from a legal and historical standpoint. I don't think the differences can even be called "subtle".
To be honest, I'm not a patriot by any means and I do think that Ceuta and Melilla will probably need to be handed to Morocco at some point, as enclaves in general don't make much sense. But the situation is not even remotely comparable from a legal and historical standpoint. I don't think the differences can even be called "subtle".
There's an obvious reason for that. Many Spaniards from the nearby towns work in Gibraltar.
I can't talk for everyone here, but most people I know couldn't care less about sovereignty. The huge problem with Gibraltar is smuggling and money laundering.
Edit: also, there's a common belief that we haven't pressured about the Gibraltar status because it could trigger that Morocco will do the same with Ceuta and Melilla. I can't really know, but it's really strange that after twenty years in the EU nothing has changed.
I can't talk for everyone here, but most people I know couldn't care less about sovereignty. The huge problem with Gibraltar is smuggling and money laundering.
Edit: also, there's a common belief that we haven't pressured about the Gibraltar status because it could trigger that Morocco will do the same with Ceuta and Melilla. I can't really know, but it's really strange that after twenty years in the EU nothing has changed.
It's very simple, for Gibraltar, for Falklands, for Pitcairn, etc.
It's Self Determination. In Gibraltar and Falklands the people living there have families stretching back centuries (over 300 years in Gibraltar's case, 150 in Falklands). Nobody is telling these people they can't become independent, or join another country. They quite simply don't want to.
When things are close in opion, like Scotland and Northern Ireland, then things are more delicate -- you can't please everyone, so you have to do what's the least danger.
In 2013, 92% of the Falklands voted, and 99.8% of those that voted, voted to stay British. In 2002, 88% of Gibraltar voted, and 99% voted to stay British.
It's Self Determination. In Gibraltar and Falklands the people living there have families stretching back centuries (over 300 years in Gibraltar's case, 150 in Falklands). Nobody is telling these people they can't become independent, or join another country. They quite simply don't want to.
When things are close in opion, like Scotland and Northern Ireland, then things are more delicate -- you can't please everyone, so you have to do what's the least danger.
In 2013, 92% of the Falklands voted, and 99.8% of those that voted, voted to stay British. In 2002, 88% of Gibraltar voted, and 99% voted to stay British.
The real question is why.
First, consider that nobody can be deprived of their nationality. They would still be UK citizens no matter what country owns the place.
Now Gibraltar lives mostly on smuggling and money laundering, with a little tourism and the military. The military facilities are no longer very useful for the British.
So what would they do there? There are more companies than inhabitants. Once the tax haven status disappears, all this income goes elsewhere. No more turning a blind eye for smuggling. Real state would suffer a big hit too.
No wonder they want their town to stay British. But they don't have a say really. Not because we say so, but the UK government. Taking that kind of referenda seriously would be so silly as voting if... oh, wait!
First, consider that nobody can be deprived of their nationality. They would still be UK citizens no matter what country owns the place.
Now Gibraltar lives mostly on smuggling and money laundering, with a little tourism and the military. The military facilities are no longer very useful for the British.
So what would they do there? There are more companies than inhabitants. Once the tax haven status disappears, all this income goes elsewhere. No more turning a blind eye for smuggling. Real state would suffer a big hit too.
No wonder they want their town to stay British. But they don't have a say really. Not because we say so, but the UK government. Taking that kind of referenda seriously would be so silly as voting if... oh, wait!
An interesting article about Australia’s Cocos Islands which was considered as an alternative to Diego Garcia
https://thediplomat.com/2019/04/australias-cocos-islands-can...
https://thediplomat.com/2019/04/australias-cocos-islands-can...
Don'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.
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.
I 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
Just because it would possibly help other powers, doesn't exclude the idea that the native islanders can legitimately want their homes back
True. 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
[1] https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/165500
they are planning on putting it back with mauritius as it was before.
Meta: This comment is 20 000 000 item on HN.
Just looked at comment IDs, realized we were past, and looked this one up. Good show.
hayd(3)
> 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.
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.
I think China will “give back” Tibet when the USA “gives back” Indian Territories.