End Of Colonization? World Court: Britain Must Return Indian Ocean Islands To Mauritius

According to Reuters Agency, The World Court  told Britain to give up control over the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean, and said it had wrongfully forced the population to leave in the 1970s to make way for a U.S. air base. Britain split the archipelago off from its colonial island territory of Mauritius in 1965, three years before granting independence to Mauritius - minus the islands. In the early 1970s, it evicted almost 2,000 residents to Mauritius and the Seychelles to make way for the base on the largest island, Diego Garcia, which it had leased to the United States. In a non-binding advisory opinion, the top United Nations court for inter-state disputes said Britain had acted unlawfully in the decolonization process and should relinquish control over the islands, which it calls the British Indian Ocean Territory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice, next Gibraltar and the Malvinas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rainman said:

(...)  In a non-binding advisory opinion,... (...)

Key words: "a non-binding advisory"... So, smoke and mirrors 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things about to get interesting...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question at hand, and it remains shrouded is: Mauritius self determination is uncomplete due to dismemberment of Chagos by UK. Mauritius's independence is void, its status of NSGT reappears under C24 pending final decolonisation? Something unclear to the present decision ICJ and Chagos...

 

image.png.f6c584c3e1636a578f9b0c9b7f34764f.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, damirUSBiH said:

Key words: "a non-binding advisory"... So, smoke and mirrors 

Indeed, ICJ has advised... hence, UK isn't bound to proceed accordingly and to withdraw. More of a symbolic win in this long diplomatic struggle?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. I don’t think the navy seal will walk on an advisory... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By this logic, to properly "de-colonise Morocco," it would be necessary for Spain to remove its soldiers and civilian administrators from the seven bits of Moroccan territory it is sitting on along the Northern shore.  There is actually an entire Spanish city just across the Straits from Gibraltar, the city of Ceuta, population 77,000, and further along to the East, almost to the Algerian frontier, you have the exclave of Mellila, population 70,000.  In both these little colonized crumbs of land, the Spanish flag flies, the Euro is the currency, and there is free travel from them into Spain and the European continent.  To no surprise, vast numbers of Africans attempt to enter the exclaves so as to obtain passage into Europe; the Spanish have erected their own versions of Mr. Trump's Great Wall, usually at least two walls of wire thick, with hundreds of armed guards.  

Here is King Juan Carlos  (previous king) visiting Cueta, guaranteed to irritate the Moroccan authorities, of course:  

image.png.09528443b980444b2d4207343a9a3dab.png

The current King is King Felipe VI, and considering he has been sending gunboats around Gibraltar ordering commercial ships to "leave Spanish waters"  (never mind that they are anchored in Gibraltar harbor), on the idea that Gibraltar is Spanish, I don't see him applying that logic to the autonomous city-state of Ceuta any time soon. 

Most of the outcroppings have some antique castle or fortification sitting on them some are approachable only at low tide by wading over some sandbar.  These little pieces of rock could make for interesting tourist destinations, run some bus tours and have paying guests gawk and take pictures, but meanwhile they are militarily defended by Spain, admittedly in one case by only two soldiers. Check out this piece of rock, totally worthless, and these local Arabs getting all upset:

image.png.68c1901cbb59c2139ea8688de258873f.png

I mean, who cares about that stupid chunk of rock?  It has to be the most totally uninteresting and worthless piece of rock on the planet.  Yet, there are the Protesters, with their big banner. 

Now move over the globe to the (much larger) piece of island rock on the East Coast of Canada, and you have Newfoundland, which at one time held fishermen and lumberjacks.  Sitting off the South Shore of Canada's Newfoundland are two little islands, St.-Pierre and Miquelon. Those are French Territory, and the French consider them just as much a part of France as Paris.  They have the legal status of "Departments" of France. There are actually 6,000 people living there, the language is French (of course), you drink French wines there (of course), wave the Tri-coleur, sing La Marseillaises, and the currency is the Euro.  As the islands lie some six miles from Canada, the No. 1 industry is smuggling, mostly of cheap booze.  

The Canadians, with considerable restraint, say nothing, do nothing, and leave it alone.  Besides, the  local Canadians make money off ferrying tourists out to "France" in their boats.   When DeGaulle showed up in Canada, to go to Montreal and deliver his infamous "Vive le Quebec Libre!" speech from the outside deck of Montreal City Hall, he first stopped at St. Pierre, to show the Flag. 

That Canadian restraint is missing in the case of Machias Seal Island, and obscure piece of rock just off the coast of Maine, but some 20 miles from the Maine - New Brunswick Border.  The competing Coast Guards, American and Canadian, take turns acting like stumblebums around the piece of rock, bullying the local lobstermen  (who long ago made their peace with each other and quietly divvied up the waters for lobster catches, everybody gets to lay their pots, and everybody is nice).  The Americans sporadically go out and demand "What is your citizenship?  Show your papers!" and other ridiculous BS, and the Canadians in turn have built some lighthouse on the Rock, complete with a light keeper, who sits out there all alone in order to command sovereignty.  It is the most ridiculous exercise imaginable.  Well, at least they are not shooting at each other. 

The piece of rock is 225 feet across.  Here it is, in all its glory:

image.png.911fd72f1d1ad81fe51d4d8573f1463f.png

Who the hell wants to go argue over that piece of nothing?  Yup, the Americans and the Canadians, or to be more accurate, American and Canadian bureaucrats, both of which are profoundly stupid and utterly useless.  I absolutely guarantee you there will be no resolution for at least the next two centuries.

Now if you go up the Coast of Canada, where ti fronts the West Coast of Greenland, there is some tiny flyspeck of rock in the channel that lies equi-distant between both countries.  Nobody there, of course, but the rock is claimed by both Canada and Denmark.  Every now and then some expedition team clad in fur coats and heavy gloves sends a rubber boat ashore, and the crewmen go plant some pole with their flag on it, to "claim" the rock for either Denmark or Canada.  Lots of flags have been planted; they all get blown away by the next Arctic storm  (it gets seriously fierce up there).  Fortunately, nobody is going to go spend money tying up the World Court on that ridiculous rock. It is so utterly remote, you cannot even use it for smuggling booze! 

Here it is, in all its glory.  That's Canada on the left, and Greenland on the right.  You want it?  Hey, go stake your claim.  Figure a thousand miles to the next house.  At least you get privacy.

image.png.997bb54ad59aa8ec8eeee207944dabc6.png

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, rainman said:

According to Reuters Agency, The World Court  told Britain to give up control over the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean, and said it had wrongfully forced the population to leave in the 1970s to make way for a U.S. air base. Britain split the archipelago off from its colonial island territory of Mauritius in 1965, three years before granting independence to Mauritius - minus the islands. In the early 1970s, it evicted almost 2,000 residents to Mauritius and the Seychelles to make way for the base on the largest island, Diego Garcia, which it had leased to the United States. In a non-binding advisory opinion, the top United Nations court for inter-state disputes said Britain had acted unlawfully in the decolonization process and should relinquish control over the islands, which it calls the British Indian Ocean Territory.

As I recall those ~2000 residents were recent immigrants to Chagos when the Brits found it and they CAME from Mauritius hundreds of miles away.  That being said, it had been a century, so...  Of course that is the max population due to lack of land and no water  that wasn't salty.  Reminds me of the Atols in the Pacific.  Technically there were a few people there....  In reality they did not really want to be there either, but make a stink about it and hope for "compassion" money. 

In this case no one living was even born on those atols in the Indian Ocean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No offense,  but my opinion is for Britain to tell the world court to drop dead....

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0