There was no way that Mauritius could forcibly expel the Anglo-American Axis from these disputed islands, and nobody was going to provide meaningful support for them to do so either.
But that's the only one; all the others are just little bits the sea floor just a bit higher than their surroundings. True, they've got beautiful, white sandy beaches and probably loads of coconuts, like something out of Robinson Crusoe, and I don't know the local language, nor even what it is, but I suspect there's a good reason why "Ile des Rats" is one of the most prominently marked spots on Google Maps.
Good luck with that! (Methinks they're gonna need it.)
"...benefits all parties: the Anglo-American Axis will continue using Diego Garcia..."
Who does this benefit? Perhaps the local fauna and flora have grown so accustomed to being the only place for thousands of miles around where jumbo-size military aircraft can land that they'll miss the carbon emissions? I don't get it. Maybe the American taxpayer would miss it? (The ghost of Moron McCain strikes again?)
"...the Anglo-American Axis hopes to improve its reputation in the Global South..."
Probably would have been better to address the issue of the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands, then? It's not going away, and is far more likely to turn into a British ''former 'sphere of influence' across the Sahel" the longer it's ignored. "Makes us feel tough and wouldn't Maggie be pleased?!"
Interesting that Boris Johnson — one of Maggie's devout sprogs — should poke his head above the parapet (to make rather a poorly-disguised re-entry into contention for (even more) political power) on the very same day!
"France stubbornly refused to reform the model of relations with its former colonies and paid dearly for it."
Where once strode Napoleon; Churchill, Maggie and Macron could not fail to follow!
"Political reforms are long overdue..."
Well, if Argentina joins BRICS (Wasn't there some talk of that?) perhaps the Falkland/Malvinas Islands could spur some significant movement?
There were no reputational costs to retaining Diego Garcia. Britain could have held onto it indefinitely. It has never been part of Mauritius. Before Mauritius was conquered as a British colony, whatever polity existed in Mauritius did not extend to the other side of the ocean including Diego Garcia. Mauritius had no claim to it whatsoever. This is just a woke government in Britain gleefully showing its anti-colonial credentials - and probably planning to do the same with Gibraltar and the Falklands. In fact, handing over the Chagos is what does reputational damage to Britain - it confirms the view that Britain is not a serious power and will stand NOT up for its interests.
I see what you're saying and it's logical from your perspective, but I was trying to explain why this happened from the perspective of the ruling elite, who are now pretty woke like you said.
I think it's the UK knuckling under to a behind-the-scenes US demand that it transfer ownership to give a non-colonial veneer to the US presence at Diego Garcia.
It's similar to the behind-the-scenes US move to ease France out of much of FrancAfrique in order to get the failing European powers out of the way.
These US gambits are discrete versions of Suez 1956.
There is no special relationship, except in the minds of the deluded Brits. I think we should align with Russia and China and turn our backs on the West - we get nothing out of the West as a concept. All we do is risk everything for the Yanks, and get nothing back. The end of the US Empire can't come soon enough for me.
The political classes of the UK and Europe are like zombies.
I think you can trace the Brit high-risk/low-reward approach to the US all the way back to the decision to abandon the Anglo-Japanese Treaty after WW I in order to conform to US strategic views of the Pacific. And Britain has never looked back.
Yes, probably. Of course, the worse thing about Diego Garcia is the way we allow the Americans to use it to bomb the Middle East. Britain is so desperate for the approval of the Americans and Europeans that we will trample over every one of our national interests.
The most ludicrous thing is that there is zero intrinsic connection between the Chagos Islands and Mauritius. The only link stems from how France and Britain decided to aggregate their Indian Ocean possessions. The natives of Mauritius couldn't possibly have exerted any control over the Chagos Islands 1200 miles away prior to the arrival of the French. Now Mauritius is a demographic mishmash--2/3 South Asian and over a quarter African with some Chinese as well. The indigenous population is basically long-gone. So, really we are seeing Indian Mauritians working with India and the US to sustain a military presence in the Chagos Islands that is aimed long-term against China while also serving in the role of "Airstrip One" for the Middle East, as you say.
I guess the agreement is that Chagos Islanders can be allowed back into the islands except for Diego Garcia. But since DG is by far the most viable land formation in the chain, I don't know what the practical effect of that stipulation will be.
"...sovereignty over the Chagos Islands in exchange for that island nation leasing Diego Garcia to the UK for the next 99 years in order to preserve its base there..." This is not sovereignty, it is a political arrangement for marketing purposes only.
Symbolic victory. The "perfidious Albion" this unworthy offshoot of the US Empire retains control of the base at Diego Garcia, as is the case with the metastatic projections of this neo-colonial island entity that are the Falklands and Gibraltar...
"...except for that one..."
But that's the only one; all the others are just little bits the sea floor just a bit higher than their surroundings. True, they've got beautiful, white sandy beaches and probably loads of coconuts, like something out of Robinson Crusoe, and I don't know the local language, nor even what it is, but I suspect there's a good reason why "Ile des Rats" is one of the most prominently marked spots on Google Maps.
"...a transformational infrastructure partnership."
Good luck with that! (Methinks they're gonna need it.)
"...benefits all parties: the Anglo-American Axis will continue using Diego Garcia..."
Who does this benefit? Perhaps the local fauna and flora have grown so accustomed to being the only place for thousands of miles around where jumbo-size military aircraft can land that they'll miss the carbon emissions? I don't get it. Maybe the American taxpayer would miss it? (The ghost of Moron McCain strikes again?)
"...the Anglo-American Axis hopes to improve its reputation in the Global South..."
Probably would have been better to address the issue of the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands, then? It's not going away, and is far more likely to turn into a British ''former 'sphere of influence' across the Sahel" the longer it's ignored. "Makes us feel tough and wouldn't Maggie be pleased?!"
Interesting that Boris Johnson — one of Maggie's devout sprogs — should poke his head above the parapet (to make rather a poorly-disguised re-entry into contention for (even more) political power) on the very same day!
"France stubbornly refused to reform the model of relations with its former colonies and paid dearly for it."
Where once strode Napoleon; Churchill, Maggie and Macron could not fail to follow!
"Political reforms are long overdue..."
Well, if Argentina joins BRICS (Wasn't there some talk of that?) perhaps the Falkland/Malvinas Islands could spur some significant movement?
There were no reputational costs to retaining Diego Garcia. Britain could have held onto it indefinitely. It has never been part of Mauritius. Before Mauritius was conquered as a British colony, whatever polity existed in Mauritius did not extend to the other side of the ocean including Diego Garcia. Mauritius had no claim to it whatsoever. This is just a woke government in Britain gleefully showing its anti-colonial credentials - and probably planning to do the same with Gibraltar and the Falklands. In fact, handing over the Chagos is what does reputational damage to Britain - it confirms the view that Britain is not a serious power and will stand NOT up for its interests.
I see what you're saying and it's logical from your perspective, but I was trying to explain why this happened from the perspective of the ruling elite, who are now pretty woke like you said.
I think it's the UK knuckling under to a behind-the-scenes US demand that it transfer ownership to give a non-colonial veneer to the US presence at Diego Garcia.
It's similar to the behind-the-scenes US move to ease France out of much of FrancAfrique in order to get the failing European powers out of the way.
These US gambits are discrete versions of Suez 1956.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/10/07/joe-biden-pushed-uk-to-surrender-chagos-islands/
Yep--that sounds right.
How many times can the US threaten to end the "special relationship"?
But that blackmail technique never seems to fail to achieve the goal du jour of US policy.
There is no special relationship, except in the minds of the deluded Brits. I think we should align with Russia and China and turn our backs on the West - we get nothing out of the West as a concept. All we do is risk everything for the Yanks, and get nothing back. The end of the US Empire can't come soon enough for me.
The political classes of the UK and Europe are like zombies.
I think you can trace the Brit high-risk/low-reward approach to the US all the way back to the decision to abandon the Anglo-Japanese Treaty after WW I in order to conform to US strategic views of the Pacific. And Britain has never looked back.
I discussed some of this stuff in a blogpost at https://libertarianism.uk/2024/06/10/the-drum-beat-to-war/
Yes, probably. Of course, the worse thing about Diego Garcia is the way we allow the Americans to use it to bomb the Middle East. Britain is so desperate for the approval of the Americans and Europeans that we will trample over every one of our national interests.
No doubt.
The most ludicrous thing is that there is zero intrinsic connection between the Chagos Islands and Mauritius. The only link stems from how France and Britain decided to aggregate their Indian Ocean possessions. The natives of Mauritius couldn't possibly have exerted any control over the Chagos Islands 1200 miles away prior to the arrival of the French. Now Mauritius is a demographic mishmash--2/3 South Asian and over a quarter African with some Chinese as well. The indigenous population is basically long-gone. So, really we are seeing Indian Mauritians working with India and the US to sustain a military presence in the Chagos Islands that is aimed long-term against China while also serving in the role of "Airstrip One" for the Middle East, as you say.
I guess the agreement is that Chagos Islanders can be allowed back into the islands except for Diego Garcia. But since DG is by far the most viable land formation in the chain, I don't know what the practical effect of that stipulation will be.
"...sovereignty over the Chagos Islands in exchange for that island nation leasing Diego Garcia to the UK for the next 99 years in order to preserve its base there..." This is not sovereignty, it is a political arrangement for marketing purposes only.
Symbolic victory. The "perfidious Albion" this unworthy offshoot of the US Empire retains control of the base at Diego Garcia, as is the case with the metastatic projections of this neo-colonial island entity that are the Falklands and Gibraltar...