Britain’s European allies desert it in a vote at the UN
economist.com
economist.com
Recently the state department has been undergoing some upheaval due to the tumultous new POTUS. One was complaining to me about it and my response was they they should have gotten rid of the war-criminal Kissinger/Zbrenzski group a long time ago and they might have avoided some of this blowback. Too many DoS people essentially worship Kissinger as the inventor of American diplomacy. Hogwash I say. It's time for real leadership in the executive to take control of the state department and other agencies and reduce what I call Machiavellian realpolitik run amok.
Here is Kissingers comment on Diego Garcia. “There are only 90,000 people out there. Who gives a damn?”
"Increasingly"?
We're doing pretty well as opposed to historical standards. Hell, we created Panama as a nation for strategic military reasons.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_interventions_of_th...
What surprises me everytime I interact with Americans is their naivety in their assumption that the leaders / politicians are any different or even better than those from any other country. Their belief that somehow these people who fight tremendous odds (almost certainly not ethically) to get to where they are, managed to do this while being true to any kind of moral compass.
For that sort of thing to be true would necessitate that Americans be essentially different than other humans.
IOW, I am surprised that Americans do not realise that the only difference between POTUS and Kim Jong Un or Saddam or... Is what they can reasonably get away with doing.
Fyi, I imagine you're getting down voted because, to my knowledge, the current US government doesn't have labor camps or gas minorities.
A better soapbox might have been "histoically, the US is as guilty as anyone of exterminating indiginous peoples."
The EU taking the stance that they are taking is really kind of counterproductive. They know nothing is going to come of it and they waste an opportunity for reproachment with the UK. They also just make the brexit case even stronger, confirming what many say about the euros not really having the best interests of the UK (or even themselves) in mind in many instances.
This is news to the rest of the world.
France, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, etc all have stolen territory all over the world.
Your statement is similarly silly. The issue in question is whether the islanders can return & have the right to self-determination.
There's no reason the US & UK couldn't work out some deal with them to continue having a military presence on the islands, the US has bases in plenty of sovereign countries, e.g. Germany.
Your comment is either extremely naive or terribly disingenuous. Even in the XXI century we see nations invested in annexation campaigns motivated by their need to reach military and strategic objectives. There are even nations that are deeply invested in creating artificial islands much like Diego Garcia to achieve goals that are achieved by Diego Garcia. Why can anyone talk about self determination if nothing stops an occupier from simply dropping anchor and taking over the place?
There's plenty of land left on the island where these people can live, they're not demanding independence or that the military base have to leave.
My comment was made in the context that even if the BIOT were to become independent, this doesn't sound like a big deal for the military base. It's very likely that if that were to happen the US could simply offer them the same deal that the independent Marshall Islands and two other island republics have:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_of_Free_Association#Mi...
Brexit has happened. May has triggered Article 50.
It doesn't matter whether the case is stronger or not. Britain has decided to take its toys and go home.
The worst part about the entire Brexit fiasco is that the British politicians simply don't seem to understand what the situation is. They seem to think they are the only actors in this entire process. So when the rubber actually hits the road, they are forced to capitulate like they had to on the 1st day on sequencing.
How can this be confirmation if it occurred after Britain triggered Brexit? It's a reaction. Of course "the euros", as you call them, don't have Britain's best interests in mind considering Britain is leaving.
It is not at all clear to me what lies behind Britains reluctance to concede here. They know very well they did wrong – violating their own rules – lopping off the territory in the first place. What if there really isn't any conspiracy behind the EU stance here, what if they simply vote what they believe is right?
Money and liability. If britain concedes, they might be held liable and be forced to pay for their misdeeds.
> They know very well they did wrong
What makes you think britain cares about their misdeeds? They've done so much worse than in diego garcia, but they still parade around like they did the world a favor.
> violating their own rules
Since when did britain care about rules? R
At the end of the day, it's about money and power.
The rightful owners?
> Most likely the Chinese would move in.
Why would they? How would they?
> There's no really good answer there.
Other than giving it back to the people it was stolen from?
Of course, we also know that there is still a long way to go before the conclusion.
After many years, what was left of the islanders won a court case against Britain who then turned around and said, good luck trying to get to your island in one piece. They continue to rent the island to the US.
Edit: They went to Mauritius and the Seychelles, apparently https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Garcia
I think it diminishes the UN's authority to have it issue edicts that are not going to be implemented or enforced.
The UN does have enforcement (by the way of international military missions), unfortunately as long as either the US or the Russians/China have veto powers this enforcement will only be used against African or former-Yugoslavian countries.
It was always an illegal occupation.
> I think it diminishes the UN's authority to have it issue edicts that are not going to be implemented or enforced.
If not the UN, then who? How are these people suppose to get their stolen land back?
It would be terrible to have families moved they eventually lose contact with their neighbours in a city like Crawley. The environment for the people born in a tropical island compared to cold urban Crawley would have been depressing.
The Chagossians were deported by the UK, so technically some islanders deported other islanders.
They can hardly argue (consistently) it's wrong for small island to get full self-determination when this was one of the major positives being floated for Brexit.
Footprint of freedom? Come on. Why do we have to do that? As a naive little kid, maybe it would make me proud. As a rational adult, it's so cringeworthy and childish and pathetic. Especially when you learn that the island/atoll was basically stolen from the people and the people were forcibly expelled by the british just so that we can play world police.
This seems like it was a vote held by other countries on whether or not they supported these islands not being allowed sovereignty even if they wanted it.
Under these circumstances it's clear why the legal fight is fought by far away.
I find it hard to believe that the British government have allies. As for British people, sure, friends all over the world, but the British government? I am scratching my head. Apart from the U.S. maybe it is just the Falkland Islands and maybe Gibraltar that are genuine 'allies'.
Even the relationship with the U.S. government is a bit strange - the 'special relationship' is something the likes of Tony Blair bark on about but the U.S. government don't use the term so readily, regardless of the intellect of the POTUS.
The deal with the E.U. was never on equal terms, e.g. adoption of the Euro or free movement of people, the U.K. was just one of those relatives with special needs that the E.U. had to put up with.
Even the Commonwealth is something you never really hear about these days. I doubt the average British citizen/subject can name five members of the Commonwealth correctly. Sure the leaders of Commonwealth countries might curtsy for the Queen but there is no guaranteed backing for what Britain does from any Commonwealth country.
The NATO alliance is just a collection of vassal states corrupted and bullied by the U.S. into some 'alliance'. There is no bond between Turkey and the U.K., these 'allies' are just 'allies' because the U.S. wants to have its weapons in Turkey as well as in the U.K. Same applies for the other NATO countries, there is no special love for Blighty just because our soldiers dress up in silly uniforms and play wargames together.
Essentially the US/UK governments have lost the respect of the rest of the world, even if there are loyal stooges in place, e.g. those in-bred oiks that claim to be royal family in Saudi Arabia. This lack of respect results in a lack of fear and growing of backbone, hence decisions such as this.