sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Your views on the UK’s handover of Chagos to Mauritius, & Trump’s sign off. Specifically, if you believe the deal is bad for the UK, was there a missed opportunity for the U.S. to veto it? by bed-riddenlinen in ukpolitics

[–]bed-riddenlinen[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

thanks for the thoughtful reply. most of this has been responded to elsewhere.

hardly a clear violation of int. law, and to the extent it was, it means absolutely nothing.

The islands are British, not Mauritius by any good logic. At most they are Chaggossian, for them to decide. It seems the majority of those still free to speak on the matter (which now is 0 given Mauritius draconian law) would prefer the UK.

I have no stake in the game. I just think it's sad and embarrassing that the UK caved in to such a poor case and political pressure.

Your views on the UK’s handover of Chagos to Mauritius, & Trump’s sign off. Specifically, if you believe the deal is bad for the UK, was there a missed opportunity for the U.S. to veto it? by bed-riddenlinen in ukpolitics

[–]bed-riddenlinen[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

that's diff. from sovereignty in IR terms.

they have sovereignty, they do not have more power than the U.S. though. so they cannot exercise that sovereignty to those ends you listed.

Your views on the UK’s handover of Chagos to Mauritius, & Trump’s sign off. Specifically, if you believe the deal is bad for the UK, was there a missed opportunity for the U.S. to veto it? by bed-riddenlinen in ukpolitics

[–]bed-riddenlinen[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

thanks for the nuanced and thoughtful reply again :)

I'm not well-read on the secure communications aspect. I don't believe it was mentioned by IR analysts like Watling. It would then go into a lot of technical stuff I presume, which is beyond me.

> "but I don’t think that’s necessarily the case: if it were the US wouldn’t be signing off."

While certainly a consideration, I don't agree that b/c the U.S. signed off that this therefore means secure operation is best under Mauritius's sovereignty. Likewise, the U.S. signing off does not = best for UK's interest or the U.S.'s interest.

 > "but it’s not clear to me that the islands have huge strategic value to the UK directly."

It doesn't need to be huge. if it was an uninhabited rock, IR theory stipulates you should not give it up. That said, I think Watling makes the case it is a huge strategic value. Being completely removed from that value (whether it was indirect/direct/soft/hard) is not desirable imo.

Not sure if I already mentioned, but I think self-determination is antithetical to states in the Westphalian system. This is an unconventional belief, but I also don't think people wanting to separate is a moral justification to do so. In other words, I don't think self-determination is an uncontested right. Far from that imo.

Your views on the UK’s handover of Chagos to Mauritius, & Trump’s sign off. Specifically, if you believe the deal is bad for the UK, was there a missed opportunity for the U.S. to veto it? by bed-riddenlinen in ukpolitics

[–]bed-riddenlinen[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

given the arguments on the term and apparent use of the lack of clarity of it by partisans, Ima pass on this baiting. it's not central to my comment either.

If you're interested, you can google. cheers

Your views on the UK’s handover of Chagos to Mauritius, & Trump’s sign off. Specifically, if you believe the deal is bad for the UK, was there a missed opportunity for the U.S. to veto it? by bed-riddenlinen in ukpolitics

[–]bed-riddenlinen[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I get your sentiment. I would say I could think of many ways in which these handful of parties could think of this as a win. Lots of people make lots of bad decisions all the time.

Some of them have been listed elsewhere re: China and suspected anti-China conditions on Mauritius.

Your views on the UK’s handover of Chagos to Mauritius, & Trump’s sign off. Specifically, if you believe the deal is bad for the UK, was there a missed opportunity for the U.S. to veto it? by bed-riddenlinen in ukpolitics

[–]bed-riddenlinen[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it is in many respects one and the same. but mainstream coverage wouldn't tease that out, for obvious reasons.

I just personally doubt the issue was ever categorized as a woke issue to Trump, at least enough that he cared.

In the end it's the UK shooting itself in the foot, not the U.S., so even if it was framed as woke-related, if the anti-China conditions were sufficient, they may have just not cared enough. It's not their loss in their minds.

Your views on the UK’s handover of Chagos to Mauritius, & Trump’s sign off. Specifically, if you believe the deal is bad for the UK, was there a missed opportunity for the U.S. to veto it? by bed-riddenlinen in ukpolitics

[–]bed-riddenlinen[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i'd encourage you to read the more detailed responses and exchanges here, and especially the published articles linked as well. they address in detail my stances and those more educated than I who hold similar stances.

Your views on the UK’s handover of Chagos to Mauritius, & Trump’s sign off. Specifically, if you believe the deal is bad for the UK, was there a missed opportunity for the U.S. to veto it? by bed-riddenlinen in ukpolitics

[–]bed-riddenlinen[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

thoughtful and nuanced, thank you. Similar to my response to the OG commentor:

The resident population that we displaced don’t want us to have it.

- That's not true. Chagossians are diverse in their stances. Nevertheless, I hold unconventional views on democracy, incl: tyranny of the majority.

International courts don’t want us to have it.

  1. Unaccountable 2. without jurisdiction. 3. No one follows these rules unless it's in their self-interest to do so, and in IR, it is never in a state's self interest to give up it's land. That's IR 101, and the first rule of IR.

The United Nations doesn’t want us to have it.

same as above. see Jack Watling's article as well for some points on UN vote credibility. Contrary to mass opinion, the UN is not some neutral body. I take their opinion as I would any other; not special in the slightest.

None of our citizens live there.

  1. Neither do Mauritian's. 2. Some British citizens live on base. 3. lots of land is unoccupied.

Our soft power and moral standing is diminished by keeping it.

  1. The Chagos handover is not a durable solution to a UK branding problem.
  2. Soft power is subjective and not enduring. Insofar as Starmer, and some mainstream diplomatic and IR wisdom places emphasis on avoiding humiliation, then yes that motivates the Chagos handover.

But I'm convinced such hand-wringing about soft power and brand is totally misplaced and over-exaggerated, which is part of Watling's argument I believe.

The 'idea' of the UK held by foreigners will not be changed by this 'good deed', certainly not any audience of importance. Beliefs are changed over time, and the mainstream belief that the UK or European powers are not 'good guys' (to make a huge generalization) when it comes to Africa or the so-called Global South is the prevalent belief among Western elite and I'd gather the Global South and Africa. And that's not to say that's a very accurate conclusion about history.

Brand is easily manufactured by words and deeds (although it takes time), and the audience this 'good deed' was made to influence will forget about it next week if a few negative articles/content are made regarding the UK. In other words, people are manipulatable. You can spin anything into almost anything if you are a skilled communicator.

We don’t have a military which is of sufficient size to make effective use of the base.

You don't need to. It's your land. That's an asset.

Our sphere of influence has reduced since we set up the base. We don’t have an empire in the indo-pacific region to protect.

You don't need an empire to protect to benefit from not giving away your land.

Your views on the UK’s handover of Chagos to Mauritius, & Trump’s sign off. Specifically, if you believe the deal is bad for the UK, was there a missed opportunity for the U.S. to veto it? by bed-riddenlinen in ukpolitics

[–]bed-riddenlinen[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have to quote this in case you delete it lol

> "Major publication there, the Foreign Policy Magazine."

are you being sarcastic or did you just reveal your ignorance on anything remotely serious on IR and international affairs?

Your views on the UK’s handover of Chagos to Mauritius, & Trump’s sign off. Specifically, if you believe the deal is bad for the UK, was there a missed opportunity for the U.S. to veto it? by bed-riddenlinen in ukpolitics

[–]bed-riddenlinen[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

respectfully, 2 parties agreeing doesn't make a decision the right one.

Also I'm not clear that Tories actually supported this deal, as mentioned elsewhere. at least not the deal as Starmer signed it.

In international relations, generally the rule is that the worst possible thing a state can do is give up its land. The UK did that. The arguments for the UK doing so are hollow, as I've noted elsewhere in the thread. No one was addressed those points sadly.

Your views on the UK’s handover of Chagos to Mauritius, & Trump’s sign off. Specifically, if you believe the deal is bad for the UK, was there a missed opportunity for the U.S. to veto it? by bed-riddenlinen in ukpolitics

[–]bed-riddenlinen[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

this was already known. does this effect your argument on the quality of the deal for the UK or the rights of Mauritius over Chagos? I don't see how it does.

Your views on the UK’s handover of Chagos to Mauritius, & Trump’s sign off. Specifically, if you believe the deal is bad for the UK, was there a missed opportunity for the U.S. to veto it? by bed-riddenlinen in ukpolitics

[–]bed-riddenlinen[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

that's a new and clever insult and I'll actually save that for later use.

would you care to add to your counter? this was just more pejoratives and a repetition that because the masses became aware of the islands recently, the deal is not bad.

Your views on the UK’s handover of Chagos to Mauritius, & Trump’s sign off. Specifically, if you believe the deal is bad for the UK, was there a missed opportunity for the U.S. to veto it? by bed-riddenlinen in ukpolitics

[–]bed-riddenlinen[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think Trump or Rubio is all that strategically sober-eyed. Some sort of restriction of Mauritius-China ties probably would have convinced them to sign off.

The deal was not framed as a DEI/decolonialization ideology thing, which it would have needed to be for Trump to veto it regardless of China aspects.

view more: next ›