War in Ukraine, assorted opinions

[Stefan Kotsch]

Who owns Diego Garcia from a legal point of view? And since when? I read that Maritius made a claim. But historically, that's also shaky. For example, until 1800 there was no population and no one officially claimed the island. However, Mauritius never really took over from Diego Garcia. As a self-colonial territory, Diego Garcia was administered only by Mauritins. Mauritius should get the island. Stuart is in demand now! 😎

 

Edited August 29, 2023 by Stefan Kotsch

[sunday]

Then there is the Western Sahara...

[ink]

5 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

Who owns Diego Garcia from a legal point of view? And since when? I read that Maritius made a claim. But historically, that's also shaky. For example, until 1800 there was no population and no one officially claimed the island. However, Mauritius never really took over from Diego Garcia. As a self-colonial territory, Diego Garcia was administered only by Mauritins. Mauritius should get the island. Stuart is in demand now! 😎

 

Here's some fun reading:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Chagossians

 

[Mistral]

1 minute ago, ink said:

Here's some fun reading:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Chagossians

 

The fact that some people were forcibly removed does not faze him tells you a lot about what he is capable of doing when given the chance.

[JWB]

5 hours ago, ink said:

Here's some fun reading:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Chagossians

 

"The Chagos Archipelago was uninhabited when first visited by European explorers, and remained that way until the French established a small colony on the island of Diego Garcia,......."  Initial owner were French.

[Mistral]

9 minutes ago, JWB said:

"The Chagos Archipelago was uninhabited when first visited by European explorers, and remained that way until the French established a small colony on the island of Diego Garcia,......."  Initial owner were French.

wow! I think you found the solution with blacks in the US  they probably lived in the US less than those people...

Liberia is just across the pond.

The object of the exercise is to get some rocks which will remain ours; there will be no indigenous population except seagulls who have not yet got a committee. Unfortunately along with the Birds go some few Tarzans or Men Fridays whose origins are obscure, and who are being hopefully wished on to Mauritius etc.

[Stuart Galbraith]

21 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

Who owns Diego Garcia from a legal point of view? And since when? I read that Maritius made a claim. But historically, that's also shaky. For example, until 1800 there was no population and no one officially claimed the island. However, Mauritius never really took over from Diego Garcia. As a self-colonial territory, Diego Garcia was administered only by Mauritins. Mauritius should get the island. Stuart is in demand now! 😎

 

I dont claim to be an expert, but if Wiki is any guide, we own it, because we bought it from Mauritius, a self Governing colony at the time. Probably distinctly undervalued I suspect, but perfidious Albion and all that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Garcia

In the early 1960s, the UK was withdrawing its military presence from the Indian Ocean, not including the airfield at RAF Gan to the north of Diego Garcia in the Maldives (which remained open until 1976), and agreed to permit the United States to establish a naval communication station on one of its island territories there. The United States requested an unpopulated island belonging to the UK to avoid political difficulties with newly independent countries, and ultimately the UK and United States agreed that Diego Garcia was a suitable location.^[25]

To accomplish the UK–US mutual defence strategy, in November 1965, the UK purchased the Chagos Archipelago, which includes Diego Garcia, from the then self-governing colony of Mauritius for £3 million to create the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), with the intent of ultimately closing the plantations to provide the uninhabited British territory from which the United States would conduct its military activities in the region.^[25]

In April 1966, the British government bought the entire assets of the Chagos Agalega Company in the BIOT for £600,000 and administered them as a government enterprise and immediately leased the plantations back to Chagos Agalega while awaiting United States funding of the proposed facilities, with an interim objective of paying for the administrative expenses of the new territory.^[24] However, the plantations, both under their previous private ownership and under government administration, proved consistently unprofitable due to the introduction of new oils and lubricants in the international marketplace, and the establishment of vast coconut plantations in the East Indies and the Philippines and the company terminated the lease at the end of 1967.^[26]

On 30 December 1966, the United States and the UK executed an agreement through an Exchange of Notes which permitted the United States to use the BIOT for defence purposes for 50 years until December 2016, followed by a 20-year extension (to 2036) as long as neither party gave notice of termination in a two-year window (December 2014 – December 2016) and the UK may decide on what additional terms to extend the agreement.^[27] No monetary payment was made from the United States to the UK as part of this agreement or any subsequent amendment. Rather, the United Kingdom received a US$14-million discount from the United States on the acquisition of submarine-launched Polaris missiles per a now-declassified addendum to the 1966 agreement.^[28]

 

^{So, if folks want to use this as an example of 'just like Crimea', it only fits if the Russian Government offered a nominal sum to Ukraine to buy crimea, which was then accepted. And hilariously, if they had done just that under Yanukovich, Ive no doubt it would have been accepted.}

^{Is there really any comparison here? I have to doubt it personally.  Still think we ought to sell it back though, I think financially we clearly stiffed them.}

[ink]

33 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I dont claim to be an expert, but if Wiki is any guide, we own it, because we bought it from Mauritius, a self Governing colony at the time. Probably distinctly undervalued I suspect, but perfidious Albion and all that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Garcia

That Wiki article is misleading since it doesn't mention multiple international and UK court cases* or UN General Assembly resolutions that have ruled the British presence to be unlawful. 

 

* these were overturned in the House of Lords but that is hardly a fair or depoliticised arena.

[JWB]

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

10 hours ago, ink said:

That Wiki article is misleading since it doesn't mention multiple international and UK court cases* or UN General Assembly resolutions that have ruled the British presence to be unlawful. 

 

* these were overturned in the House of Lords but that is hardly a fair or depoliticised arena.

The UN judged the UK presence in the Falklands was unjustified, and recently that we should pay massive reparations for slavery. I hardly think the UN a fair or depoliticised  arena either.

 

[ink]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 I hardly think the UN a fair or depoliticised  arena either.

 

That's fair.

[seahawk]

9 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The UN judged the UK presence in the Falklands was unjustified, and recently that we should pay massive reparations for slavery. I hardly think the UN a fair or depoliticised  arena either.

 

But only if they decide something you do not like. Fact is the West is greatest threat to the World and has committed the most crimes.

[Stuart Galbraith]

They have decided something we like pretty much year on year since the place was setup. We didnt exactly see outrage at Argentina invading, or condemnation of Eire not passing up its claim on Northern Ireland pre Anglo Irish agreement, which helped precipitate the conflict. We stick with the UN because it can do lots of good, not because that is all it does.

Somewhere on a cloud Comrades Beria and Stalin are chuckling at your mischief, you cheeky chap.

 

[seahawk]

And you are surprised that some see the Falklands as Argentine? The first settlement was French and founded in 1764, given to the Spanish in 1766. The Brits had a short time of 8 years on West Falkland from 1766 to 1774. 1820 the settlement became Argentine. 1833 the Brits forced the Argentinians to leave by establishing a fleet refuelling point in the Falklands.

Basically the same goes for Northern Ireland. The Irish position did have some good arguments as well.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Im surprised that the Argentinians see it as Argentine, as Argentinia didnt even exist when Britain claimed it for the crown. Yes, Im fairly astonished to be quite honest. Doubtless America could lay claim to Canada and Mexico if this were true.

Speaking as someone whose ancestor signed the Ulster Covenant, I find the Northern Paddies were also well equipped with argumentation also. It must run in the family.

 

[seahawk]

Well, then you should be fully supporting Russia, as they claimed Ukraine in the past and before the modern Ukraine existed.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 If anyone should be invading anyone, Ukraine should be rightfully taking back its territories in the north, wrongfully deprived of them by the Golden Horde.

[ink]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Im surprised that the Argentinians see it as Argentine, as Argentinia didnt even exist when Britain claimed it for the crown. Yes, Im fairly astonished to be quite honest. Doubtless America could lay claim to Canada and Mexico if this were true.

Speaking as someone whose ancestor signed the Ulster Covenant, I find the Northern Paddies were also well equipped with argumentation also. It must run in the family.

 

A quick glance at US overseas territories shows that they claimed quite a lot on the basis of not very much.

But I'll readily agree that Argentina's claim on the Falklands is baseless. Especially and over and above legal concerns, because of the feelings of the people who actually have to live on those godforsaken, sheep-infested rocks.

[seahawk]

43 minutes ago, ink said:

A quick glance at US overseas territories shows that they claimed quite a lot on the basis of not very much.

But I'll readily agree that Argentina's claim on the Falklands is baseless. Especially and over and above legal concerns, because of the feelings of the people who actually have to live on those godforsaken, sheep-infested rocks.

That is the point. If Stuart would have mentioned the recent referendum, which showed that a vast majority wanted to be British it would be a point, but he based the legality of British ownership of some historic British claim made in 1594.

[Stuart Galbraith]

But I thought we had disregarded the right of individuals to choose their own nationality, when you accepted Russia had a divine right to invade Ukraine because History?

 

[seahawk]

And you just showed that the only real reason is "Russia bad", because obviously the same divine historic right is still good, if it suits your own side.

[sunday]

3 hours ago, ink said:

A quick glance at US overseas territories shows that they claimed quite a lot on the basis of not very much.

But I'll readily agree that Argentina's claim on the Falklands is baseless. Especially and over and above legal concerns, because of the feelings of the people who actually have to live on those godforsaken, sheep-infested rocks.

When territorial claims between the UK and some other country closer to the territory claimed, usually the part on the right is the other country.

However, in the modern "rules-based" international order, the UK always is right, unless the other country is the People's Republic of China.

[DB]

On 8/28/2023 at 3:47 PM, ink said:

I understand where you're coming from.

However, I do think that people are starting to go a bit nuts and are posting maps of Russia showing imperial expansion going back to the 16th century as though no other country has expanded its borders since then... Or are otherwise shouting "landgrab" from their computers in countries that are still in illegal possession of land they've grabbed.

It just strikes me as a bit topsy-turvy* and I don't at all mind pointing that out.

It's an interesting map, but like hypothetical arguments about someone wanting to subsume Scotland and the Scots into some dubious racial categorisation, it has no merit except as a diversion from what is actually happening.

Which remains that Russia invaded a foreign country that had borders it recognised without any duress and continues to be responsible for the deaths of thousands of Ukrainians and Russians, and which will likely result in decades of lost development opportunities for Russia, and all this down to the deluded hubris of one shiny-pated narcissist and his cult of personality.

[Mistral]

59 minutes ago, DB said:

It's an interesting map, but like hypothetical arguments about someone wanting to subsume Scotland and the Scots into some dubious racial categorisation, it has no merit except as a diversion from what is actually happening.

Which remains that Russia invaded a foreign country that had borders it recognised without any duress and continues to be responsible for the deaths of thousands of Ukrainians and Russians, and which will likely result in decades of lost development opportunities for Russia, and all this down to the deluded hubris of one shiny-pated narcissist and his cult of personality.

And yet your country has extremely good relations with a country that invaded and occupies parts of three other countries with recognised borders and was responsible of the deaths of thousands.  All in living memory. Go figure.

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, seahawk said:

And you just showed that the only real reason is "Russia bad", because obviously the same divine historic right is still good, if it suits your own side.

Here we go again, you are anti Slav/Russian. Really, can't you guys come up with some new material? It's been 9 years, and in all that time I've invaded nowhere.

It's not me or British imperialism that's your problem here. Nobody hypnotised Putin and turned him into a homicidal maniac. That's on him.