Diego Garcia is an island of the British Indian Ocean Territory, a disputed overseas territory of the United Kingdom also claimed by Mauritius. It is a militarised atoll just south of the equator in the central Indian Ocean, and the largest of the 60 small islands of the Chagos Archipelago.
Portuguese sailors under Pedro Mascarenhas were the first Europeans to discover the island, finding it uninhabited in 1512. After a 1786 British colony failed, the French began using the island as a leper colony and, starting in 1793, coconut cultivation by enslaved labor. It was transferred to British rule after the Napoleonic Wars. It was one of the "Dependencies" of the British Colony of Mauritius until the Chagos Islands were detached for inclusion in the newly created British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) in 1965.
More recently:
Between 1968 and 1973, the Chagossian (Îlois) inhabitants were forcibly expelled from Diego Garcia by the UK Government so that a joint US/UK military base could be established on the island.
In 2023, Human Rights Watch condemned the action as a crime against humanity.
"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, composed of 50–60 men and "a complement of slaves"."
"In 2023, Human Rights Watch condemned the action as a crime against humanity."
Yet the BBC fails to mention this in their 2024 article, instead they use this language to describe the event: "Britain took control of the Chagos Islands"
> the Chagossian (Îlois) inhabitants were forcibly expelled from Diego Garcia by the UK Government
That's the kind of thing that the West did to become the dominant powers in the current world. It's easy to mistake the current system as having been responsible for that. Once you're at the top, you can afford yourself the luxury of acting morally, I suppose, as long as you're the one defining morality... and only while doing that does not go against your "security" or somtimes, making a few bucks, of course.
In short: UK has no place there, US has no place there. A whole bunch of refugees probably do have a place there but no-one cares about them. Also crimes are probably being committed over and above what I’ve just described.
In other words: situation normal in the Chagos Islands.
This sounds like a prime example for arguing that our current international legal system is broken. The "territory" in question is a tiny, isolated island - which is a US/UK military base. The people are refugees from a vastly larger island, a thousand-ish miles away. Doubtless the military folks would prefer that civilian authorities quietly take the refugees off their hands, and away from their tiny island base.
But Because Laws, nothing sane is allowed to happen.
And meanwhile, the Britain's just-elected new PM, with a massive majority in the new Parliament, started his legal career as a human rights lawyer.
> And meanwhile, the Britain's just-elected new PM, with a massive majority in the new Parliament, started his legal career as a human rights lawyer.
I don't think that Starmer can do much for this situation even if it was on his list of priorities. Even if he declared the island(s) to be free from UK occupation, then the U.S. would still be blocking non-military people from accessing it.
Small picture? Call the Oval Office, and let Joe know the problem's gotta be fixed.
(Yes, there'd be a quid pro quo price to pay, even if word never got out. It ain't 1880 no more - when the Royal Navy ruled the oceans, but even 4th-rate nations could get away with laughing in the US Navy's face.)
Slightly bigger picture? Move the migrants off Diego Garcia by fiat (they are de facto prisoners there) to some tiny British Island, and tell the British court to deal with them there.
The latter would open a can of worms in British domestic politics. The right-ish wing would (at best) want the island to be a lifeless rock with a large glacier or smoking volcano on it - better to send an "emigrants & refugees NOT welcome" message. The left-ish wing would not react well to forced relocation to such a spot.
This is a beat-up. The US has a lease on the territory, and it is their prerogative to control access. The British would not have let Chinese lawmakers into Kowloon during the lease. The US would not let Cuban lawmakers into Guantánamo Bay, also leased.
How can anyone think that Hong Kong new territories and Guantanamo, which were areas essentially taken by force and then had a dubious leasing agreement painted over them, is the same situation as an agreement between two formal allies?
Between 1968 and 1973, the Chagossian (Îlois) inhabitants were forcibly expelled from Diego Garcia by the UK Government so that a joint US/UK military base could be established on the island.
Many were deported to Mauritius and the Seychelles, following which the United States built the large Naval Support Facility Diego Garcia, which has been in continuous operation since then.
In 2019, this action and continued British administration of the archipelago were deemed illegal by the International Court of Justice in The Hague, a ruling the United Nations General Assembly supported.
In 2023, Human Rights Watch condemned the action as a crime against humanity.
An important detail to add to that, to ensure a complete picture is created of the situation, is that originally the atol was uninhabited. The French created a colony there of 60 or so people and slaves.
Umm, "people and slaves"? Do you really consider slaves to not be people?
Also, originally Iceland was uninhabited. The Norse created a colony there of - as you put it - "people and slaves". That equivalent history surely does not affect the legal status of the descendants of those people now living in Iceland. Why should it affect the people now living in the BIOT?
In the 19th Century, the U.K. (and France, the US and others) militarily defeated China and imposed humiliating “unequal treaties” on it. Nowadays the US does the same to the U.K., e.g. an extradition treaty that gives US citizens far more leeway to fight extradition than the other way round. The occupation of Diego Garcia is just another example of the U.K. being America’s poodle.
Always interesting to see how people try to spin Diego Garcia vs PRC in SCS. Chagos/Diego Garcia case another reason why US will never ratify UNCLOS. Reminder there's now actual ITLOS ruling (as in official UN) against UK vs Mauritius. Also reminder that there is no actual formal ruling (as in ITLOS/ICJ) against PRC for SCS - PCA PH vs PRC is not formal UNCLOS case since PRC not subject to optional arbituation clause - hence ITLOS has no formal position on the case. PCA has the legal status of a high school essay. Post ITLOS Chagos ruling, UK (by connection US) is now worse violator of UNCLOS/international law than PRC in SCS... as in actual UN international law, not make believe rules-based-order law. Extra spicy drama now US/UK can't even maintain the rule-based-order wank between friends.
See how sneaky the language being used is crafted to not put blame on the UK:
"Britain took control of the Chagos Islands, of which Diego Garcia is part, from its then colony, Mauritius, in 1965. It went on to evict its population of more than 1,000 people to make way for the military base." -- BBC
They "took control" (sound quite nice) and "evicted" (probably also the nicest word they could find). The intend is also clear: kick out the natives to make a military base in a place of the world far from their home-island.
See how this language changes when Russia "takes control" of the Donbas. At least Russia claims to step up to rescue the Russian population of Ukraine that lives in a bordering region that Russia controlled not too long ago.
Hence I consider the BBC to be tax paid UK state propaganda, not much better or worse than RT.com in Russia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagossians says "The Chagossians are a mix of African, Indian and Malay descent.[4] The French brought some to the Chagos Islands as slaves from Mauritius in 1786. Others arrived as fishermen, farmers, and coconut plantation workers during the 19th century."
The slaves brought there by the French predate British control.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Chagossians adds that before 1835, the "workers brought to the island by the British" were not really "workers" but forcibly transported slaves, in the same sense that the slaves the English brought to Jamaica were "workers."
I respond instead of reflexively downvoting. This is not an argument. And even if that one line could be considered one, it is lazy and does not address the point OP is making.
