Article DIY: The UK is coming to its senses about the Chagos Islands

[C C]

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/the...os-islands

Ahead of King Charles III’s state visit to Washington last week, the UK government quietly shelved its agreement to hand the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, while maintaining the lease on the US-UK military base on Diego Garcia Island on April 11. The agreement stemmed from a 2019 International Court of Justice opinion declaring that the United Kingdom’s possession of the Chagos Islands was contrary to international law.

London’s decision to put the agreement on hold followed President Donald Trump’s revocation of support for the agreement after months of transatlantic debate. In this saga lies a lesson that the UK government is only now learning: the Indian Ocean is an arena of strategic competition, not a matter of obedience to advisory opinions from international courts.

The events since the beginning of the American-Israeli attacks on Iran have forced the government of Prime Minister Keir Starmer to confront uncomfortable realities. Their lack of verbal support and initial refusal to allow the use of UK military bases were out of step with President Trump’s expectations and incurred withering criticism from the White House.

This disagreement added weight to President Trump’s reversal of his support for the Chagos deal in January, which ultimately could not proceed without the White House’s backing.

The UK government’s doctrinaire approach to international law is misaligned with an increasingly competitive global environment. This is no less true in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR), where the Chagos Islands are at the center of great power maritime and economic competition.

The prevailing worldview within the UK government is severely divorced from the attitudes of other actors in the region, such as China, India, and Mauritius. China, for example, has in recent years overseen a significant buildup in naval assets and capabilities in the Indo-Pacific. Closer to home, Beijing has made extensive efforts to colonize the Paracel and Spratly Islands and make extensive claims in the South China Sea, through which much of international trade transits.

Farther afield, China deployed its first submarine to the IOR in 2014, opened a military base in Djibouti in 2017, and has been increasing military exercises in the IOR to improve the People’s Liberation Army Navy’s (PLAN) familiarity with the region and prepare for any future conflict.

[Syne]

Surprised they came to their senses, instead of rolling over like a good dog.
Maybe they decided their managed decline still needed some security.

[stryder]

Surprised they came to their senses, instead of rolling over like a good dog.
Maybe they decided their managed decline still needed some security.

It probably had more to do with the Milei-Trump meeting that talked about the Falklands (which neither of them have anything to do with).
This scare/blackmail tactic would of likely been the way to have overturned it. It would of further brought other UK territories into question too.

[Syne]

On Friday though, hours after Reuters exclusively reported that an internal Pentagon email suggested reviewing the U.S. position on the disputed archipelago as retaliation for Britain's stance on the Iran war, Milei ​shot off a fiery post on X, saying Las Malvinas "were, are and will always be Argentine."
Argentina has long claimed it inherited the islands from Spain ​after its independence in 1816 and that Britain took control in 1833 through an illegal colonial act. Britain, under Thatcher's government, ⁠and Argentina fought a brief war over the islands in 1982, in which 649 Argentine and 255 British service members died, after Argentina invaded in a failed ​bid to take them.
- https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/a...026-04-28/

Seems Argentina has quite the history with the Falkland Islands.

If the UK isn't the ally we thought they were, there's no reason we'd want them to have any influence in the Western hemisphere. We've been busy degrading Chinese influence, in Cuba and Venezuela. We don't need a spineless "ally" to roll over for China.

[stryder]

On Friday though, hours after Reuters exclusively reported that an internal Pentagon email suggested reviewing the U.S. position on the disputed archipelago as retaliation for Britain's stance on the Iran war, Milei ​shot off a fiery post on X, saying Las Malvinas "were, are and will always be Argentine."
Argentina has long claimed it inherited the islands from Spain ​after its independence in 1816 and that Britain took control in 1833 through an illegal colonial act. Britain, under Thatcher's government, ⁠and Argentina fought a brief war over the islands in 1982, in which 649 Argentine and 255 British service members died, after Argentina invaded in a failed ​bid to take them.
- https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/a...026-04-28/

Seems Argentina has quite the history with the Falkland Islands.

If the UK isn't the ally we thought they were, there's no reason we'd want them to have any influence in the Western hemisphere. We've been busy degrading Chinese influence, in Cuba and Venezuela. We don't need a spineless "ally" to roll over for China.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reassertio...nds_(1833)

...Economic pressures led Britain to unilaterally withdraw from many overseas settlements in 1774, and they left Port Egmont on 20 May 1774, leaving a plaque asserting their continuing sovereignty over the islands. A few years later, under orders from Madrid, the Spanish demolished the settlement at Port Egmont and removed the plaque. The Spanish settlement at Puerto Soledad was itself withdrawn in 1811...

The history kind of goes Britain initially got the location, reliquished for a duration. During which time others tried to take it, who used it as a base to operate a kangroo court for those that fished in nearby regions without permission. They happened to confiscate a couple of US ships which caused the US to remove them from the island (And the use Raided the place). That in turn caused a problem for Britain as the US likely saw it as a British problem (since it was claimed by Britain) which caused sovereign reassertion.

The first location claimed on the islands was French in origin and while it was eventually transfered to the Spanish, the transfer occurred after a British claim. (In that instance it's more of a "Money for old rope" strategy, whereby Spain was likely making the claim just to make things awkward.)

---

As for the nonsense about Allies. Do you understand the difference between the feelgood factor of having an Ally and the actual legitimate declaration of what an Alliance is?

During the First and Second world war the US was an Ally, but only after they declared themselves as. (As per the Trump method, it would of likely required unscrupulous manipulation to gain prosperous deals at a great disadvantage to those that required an Alliance. E.g. the UK/Britain)

In those instances the Alliance was forged to combat the same foe as a directive. It as an active and aggressive pact in regards to operations, the objectives were clear.

When it comes to NATO the Alliance is a Defensive PACT, it was known to be that from the get go. It's not a group of countries to rile up and get attacking a single objective unless their is direct provocation that fits the original agreements. NATO is therefore not Trumps whipping boy no matter how much he wants to scream about it. If anything he and anyone else that believes his nonsense just look stupid for not understanding the difference between an Alliance forged for war and one for Defence.

It's therefore not spineless to not be involved in a war that Trump knows only Benefits US interests in the long run (especially considering the questionable intelligence, motives and Israeli interests)

[Syne]

The history kind of goes Britain initially got the location, reliquished for a duration.

True of the Colonies too. How'd that work out?

As for the nonsense about Allies. Do you understand the difference between the feelgood factor of having an Ally and the actual legitimate declaration of what an Alliance is?

During the First and Second world war the US was an Ally, but only after they declared themselves as. (As per the Trump method, it would of likely required unscrupulous manipulation to gain prosperous deals at a great disadvantage to those that required an Alliance. E.g. the UK/Britain)

Yes, NATO is a declared alliance, after WWII. If it's a one-way alliance, it's useless to the US.

When it comes to NATO the Alliance is a Defensive PACT, it was known to be that from the get go.

Yes, and when a terrorist state is proven to have weapons that can reach most of NATO member Europe, it's still in the service of defense.

It's not a group of countries to rile up and get attacking a single objective unless their is direct provocation that fits the original agreements.

Oh, you'd rather have European population centers hit FIRST. Got it.

It's therefore not spineless to not be involved in a war that Trump knows only Benefits US interests in the long run (especially considering the questionable intelligence, motives and Israeli interests)

It really is spineless. It's shortsighted and overly optimistic that a terrorist state that vows the destruction of the West wouldn't, once it obtained nuclear weapons, unilaterally restrict the Strait of Hormuz and directly threaten many NATO members. Europe relying more on the Strait and being within range of a direct attack actually makes it so much more a European problem. But they are too spineless and ineffectual to act before the threat is overwhelming. Just take Ukraine. All the Europeans uselessly posture while rooting for the war to continue indefinitely... solely counting on the US NATO agreement to bail them out.

But keep believing that Russian KGB propaganda against Israel. 9_9