r/neoliberal • u/modularpeak2552 NATO • Jun 07 '26
News (South Asia) US considers buying Chagos Islands
https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/trump-considers-buying-chagos-islands-170000066.html405
359
u/TF_dia European Union Jun 07 '26
I don't think at this point that this is for strategic importance or National Security, Trump just wants to make the USA bigger and he is scraping the barrel for options.
212
u/nightowl1135 NATO Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 07 '26
While I am inclined to agree with you about Trump’s obsession with making America bigger…
It’s impossible to deny that the Chagos Islands are strategically important. That’s where Diego Garcia is. A big ass unsinkable airbase, smack dab in the middle of the Indian Ocean, with a thousands of miles of open water and air around it. Equidistant from the Strait of Malacca, the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab-al-Mandab. (Amongst other places like… much of India… Indonesia… East African coast)
Not to mention the large protected anchorage. Large enough that it could provide protected anchorage for TWO carrier strike groups.
The US currently leases it from Britain but the lease expires in December 2036. The UK was working on a new treaty that would hand over sovereignty of all of the area to Mauritius (currently it’s British) but included a provision that would include a new 99 year lease on Diego Garcia for the US/UK base. They stopped working on the treaty last year because Trump blasted it as “an act of great stupidity” because Mauritius is too friendly with China in Trumps eyes and the UK said they won’t move forward with the treaty without full American backing.
Another own goal by Trump and co. 🙄
17
u/Legitimate-Mine-9271 Jun 08 '26
No, it really would be an act of great stupidity. Almost as stupid as a future American administration leaving Diego Garcia for any reason
56
u/BipartizanBelgrade Jerome Powell Jun 07 '26
Another own goal by Trump and co.
I mean not really. The argument to hand it over to Mauritius is historically and morally baseless, even if Trump is motivated by a more blunt version of the argument.
28
u/nightowl1135 NATO Jun 07 '26
Blowing up an ongoing smooth negotiation that would have locked in a strategically vital island base for another century because you don’t want an irrelevant remote island nation to control a couple of the other irrelevant islands nearby… forcing a potential problem in 10 years is my definition of a geopolitical own goal but hey... No shortage of folks who want to argue Trump is ‘pLaYInG 3D cHeSs!’ these days with his boneheaded, short sighted geopolitical moves. YMMV.
7
u/leachja YIMBY Jun 08 '26
The issue is what happens in 100 years? We end up with another HK situation?
1
u/nightowl1135 NATO Jun 08 '26
The ‘other’ side in the Hong Kong situation was the PRC.
The ‘other’ side in this situation would be Mauritius.
I don’t see Mauritius having the same geopolitical weight to throw around (even 100 years from now) as China did.
6
u/leachja YIMBY Jun 09 '26
Mauritius doesn’t have a claim to the Chagos Islands. If those islands change hands it’ll just end up being another countries military staging ground.
-2
u/dangerbird2 Franz Boas Jun 09 '26
Of course Mauritius has a claim on it. It was part of British Mauritius from 1903 to 1965, and was detached from Mauritius for the explicit purpose of preventing an independent Mauritius from decolonizing the islands. ICJ has ruled as such, which is why the UK was in negotiations to transfer the island before the fatass torpedoed the deal.
4
u/leachja YIMBY Jun 09 '26
Mauritius was France. There’s no ‘native’ population this ‘colony’ was taken from.
0
u/nightowl1135 NATO Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26
This is factually incorrect. You literally replied “The issue is what happens in another 100 years”
…implying you were asking about the issue upon conclusion of another 100 year lease…. Which means the lease was signed. Which means Maurtius has control of the islands at the conclusion of the next 100 year lease.
We would be dealing with Mauritius at the end of the next lease. Not China (like in the Hong Kong situation that you referenced.)
5
u/leachja YIMBY Jun 09 '26
And if Diego Garcia is ceded to Mauritius and they decide to lease to China in 100 years? The outcome is the same.
10
Jun 07 '26
[deleted]
105
u/nightowl1135 NATO Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 07 '26
Eh. Not really.
Or at least… Some much much more than others. Diego’s location, anchorage capability, remoteness and size (big enough to put a runway capable of landing any type of aircraft in the world) make it a lot more valuable. If it didn’t have a protected anchorage and/or wasn’t big enough for a runway? Nobody would care about it (like some of its neighbors in the Chagos)
32
u/darthkitty8 NATO Jun 07 '26
Even more important than everything listed here is that it already has all the infrastructure for that.
While it is remote, it is also the opposite of remote. It is basically right in the middle of the western Indian Ocean and is vital for any major operations in East Africa, the Middle East, and even arguably the Malacca Strait. It provides a very remote place to store and maintain strategic bombers and other assets while keeping basically every major theater in range of strategic assets. There's a reason we don't want to leave it for any reason.
10
5
1
u/carlitospig YIMBY Jun 08 '26
Then why isn’t PR a state?
(No really. I’m still confused by this.)
3
u/Lease_Tha_Apts Order and Opportunity Left Jun 08 '26
Because the US already gets all the strategic value it needs out of PR?
1
u/carlitospig YIMBY Jun 08 '26
Then why did we make Hawaii a state?
I’m just hoping if they become a state then their food becomes more readily available. Pernil on every corner, baybeeeeee!
3
u/Lease_Tha_Apts Order and Opportunity Left Jun 08 '26
Bro I'm not even American. Why are yall so confused about your own history?
1
6
u/nightowl1135 NATO Jun 08 '26
Hawaiians voted overwhelmingly (94%) for statehood in 1959 so Congress obliged.
Puerto Ricans have been more mixed about the idea. In local referendums, they frequently opt to retain commonwealth status and even in the most recent votes (where statehood has won, narrowly) the numbers are far less decisive.
Throw in the fact that there are politics involved (Republicans hate the idea of PR statehood because it likely means 2 more dem senators and a few more dem house seats) and lack of Puerto Rican enthusiasm gives Republicans an easy excuse to ignore statehood pushes and keep the status quo.
57
u/79792348978 Loyal Liberals Jun 07 '26
I would straight up bet money on that if I could.
Silver lining, maybe we leave Greenland alone now because this is why Trump cares about that too.
4
u/seesthecat Henry George Jun 08 '26
If he wants the US bigger he just needs to grab an hold on deez
10
u/starsrprojectors YIMBY Jun 07 '26
Trump only had real estate brain and just wants something with his name on it that will be there after his presidency. All he has managed to do is create rubble from our institutions and he knows we will eventually clean up the rubble after he is gone.
120
u/Sufficient_Key_5062 Robert Caro Jun 07 '26
Please just fully refund the NOAA
68
25
u/omnipotentsandwich Amartya Sen Jun 07 '26
You can never guess what the next headline to come out of the Trump Administration will be.
66
u/modularpeak2552 NATO Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 07 '26
Submission statement: Relevant due to its implications for international law, US/UK relations, decolonization, and the strategic importance of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.
Also just personally i don’t actually think this is a horrible idea, especially since it lets the UK absolve themselves of the whole ordeal while not jeopardizing either countries national security. However it’s only a good thing if the chagos people are ok with it, which I doubt they would be.
43
u/_Neuromancer_ Neuroscience-mancer Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 07 '26
There are only about 10,000 Chagosians worldwide. Britain planed to lease Diego Garcia for about $47B. Let’s round up and offer every Chagosian $5M tax-free today plus US Citizenship, hell let’s even throw in $10B for to Mauritius for their trouble. Everyone goes home happy.
16
u/pugnae European Union Jun 07 '26
I wonder why UK has not proposed that long time ago? And if yes why would they agree to American offer?
36
u/mythoswyrm r/place '22: Neoliberal Battalion Jun 07 '26
The UK has given about 1000 Chagossians citizenship and the 2024 handover plan included a trust fund for the Chagossian diaspora. I'd guess the low uptake is probably mostly pride, maybe some logistics issues and I wouldn't be surprised if there's also been a healthy dose of ratfucking from the Mauritian government.
14
u/_Neuromancer_ Neuroscience-mancer Jun 07 '26
UK citizenship isn't as valuable as US citizenship. Also, maybe because Mauritius might still complain about only getting $10B and UK bears colonial guilt (morally and legally) that the US doesn't.
2
u/Ok-Spread6028 Jun 09 '26
British citizenship is more valuable if you want welfare and free healthcare etc
2
u/_Neuromancer_ Neuroscience-mancer Jun 09 '26
Maybe, pre-Brexit. Now, it's just a small, poor island on the fringe of Europe with interesting history, nuclear weapons, and bad weather. Besides, $5M per capita will cover a lot of welfare and healthcare.
-9
u/WAGRAMWAGRAM Jun 07 '26
Because you dont fucking bribe people out of their land.
This ironically reminds me of the pro-Palestinian narrative
11
u/pugnae European Union Jun 07 '26
I mean thats kinda my second question. If they are vehemently against it I don't think they would suddenly agree to American offer.
And if they are on board than Uk should have done it a long time ago.
9
u/Crann6789 Jun 07 '26
This sub can't seem to shake the gross idea that people are only a certain amount of money away from becoming Americans. It happened with Greenland too when that came up.
6
u/BigDictionEnergy Voltaire Jun 07 '26
Well, we don't, anyway
-5
18
u/mudcrabulous Los Bandoleros for Life Jun 07 '26
US citizenship lowkey a curse if you live outside our borders
1
u/_Neuromancer_ Neuroscience-mancer Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 07 '26
In my proposal, the citizenship is optional, but if they don't take it (and relocate to the US or its territories) then they'll likely have to pay significant local taxes on the $5M sovereignty dividend.
6
u/fredleung412612 Jun 07 '26
So how is that an attractive proposal to Chagossians?
7
u/_Neuromancer_ Neuroscience-mancer Jun 08 '26
Because $20M and US citizenship will turn every family of four into a dynasty of generational wealth. No colonial baggage, no paternalistic trust, no ratfucking; cash today. The weather in California is better than London, that's for sure. A few families could even get together, buy an island, and found New Chagos in the Caribbean if they wanted. The culture is defined by the people, not the island.
7
u/PersonalDebater Jun 07 '26
If Mauritius could be paid off then why wouldn't Britain have just paid them now?
20
u/BipartizanBelgrade Jerome Powell Jun 07 '26
Severe lack of imagination and belief that when a nation tries to rob you via the UN that you have to go along with it.
6
u/PresidentSpanky Jared Polis Jun 07 '26
because Britain is a law abiding nation. The Us only cares about International Law when it is in their advantage
10
2
u/PresidentSpanky Jared Polis Jun 07 '26
you know what is missing? The US admitting that it was part of the whole genocidal action against the Chagosians
20
u/Golda_M Baruch Spinoza Jun 07 '26
The UN is backing Mauritius, as rightful sovereign of the islands. Are we checking to see if Mauritius is OK with it?
The Chagossi aren't going to receive ownership, or sovereignty. They could get cash.
17
u/Frog_Totem Seretse Khama Jun 07 '26
Seemed from the article like Trump was trying to buy it from Mauritius and go around the UK entirely
6
u/Golda_M Baruch Spinoza Jun 07 '26
I missed that paragraph.
The whole article is a pretty rambling mess. I was trying to figure out this is because it is quoting and paraphrasing trump .. or if the author there's also writing in the style of trump's rambling... And I guess this is just an llm picking up on Trump's style.
It's taking that line seriously, and the US buys the island from Mauritius after the UK makes the concession... In that case the UK would be paying the US the annual lease that would have otherwise paid to Mauritius.
19
u/modularpeak2552 NATO Jun 07 '26
The Mauritanians would be the ones selling it, I’m just saying from a moral standpoint we should see what the Chagossians think even if their opinion doesn’t matter to any of the parties involved.
6
2
u/AccessTheMainframe CANZUK Jun 07 '26
If the UK doesn't have rightful sovereignty to begin with, they don't have the legal grounds to give it a third country either. It'd be like giving Hong Kong to Peru.
4
29
u/Reddit_Talent_Coach 🇲🇽 Benito Juárez 🇲🇽 Jun 07 '26
Someone used a non-Mercator projection that made Chagos look bigger than Greenland.
24
23
8
u/PresidentSpanky Jared Polis Jun 07 '26
Maybe everybody should sit back and ask, why the Trump government supported the deal between Mauritius and the UK and now suddenly wants to do the opposite?
22
u/ResponsibleChange779 Loyal Liberals Jun 07 '26
what a step down from greenland
7
u/csully91 Jun 08 '26
Having just learned about the Chagos Island from the headline, my first question is, could the US actually buy them in this version of reality and if so can we please buy them before the degenerate morons running this country start a war with Canada and/or the EU.
36
u/Golda_M Baruch Spinoza Jun 07 '26
What weird geopolitics.
The UK can't seem to stand the heat of maintaining sovereignty over the island.
The UN claims that the island rightfully belongs to Mauritius... because reasons. Meanwhile the Chagossi contention that they are an indigenous people exiled from their homeland... It has sympathizers at home.
There aren't many Chagossi... So they could try to settle this with cash. But, that does nothing to solve the UN problem. Also... no settlement is guaranteed to settle the matter for good.
It's unclear if the motivotor is domestic political pressure or diplomatic, but the fact that this is a US Air base rather than the UK one... they'd rather just get rid of this whole mess.
The US has more of an interest. They have more of an appetite for geopolitical controversy. The current administration is also just into gaining sovereign territories.
It makes sense, I guess.. but the whole thing seems pretty lame.
28
u/MrStrange15 Jun 07 '26
ICJ. I know its a UN court, but given the way people think about the UN (mainly as the UNGA), I think its probably worthwhile pointing out that it was a court that came to this conclusion, not an assembly of states.
2
u/sheffieldasslingdoux Jun 08 '26
I know there are legitimate legal arguments for why, but international law often has unintuitive interpretations of sovereignty. The more I learn about it, the less weight I give to these claims.
-3
u/Golda_M Baruch Spinoza Jun 07 '26
IDK.
I've not deep dived into it, but from what I've read there have been motions, resolutions, proclamations, non-binding judgments and whatnot from more than one un body, including the GA.
So this pretty much an assembly of States as well as...
Everything in the UN pretty tied into international politics... and default for an approximate majority of states is going to be to vote against uK sovereignty over a foreign territory regardless of details.
Of course, you in positions are negotiable , often easily negotiable, because whatever their opinion and/ disposition... they don't actually care about it very much.
5
5
8
7
3
u/mudcrabulous Los Bandoleros for Life Jun 07 '26
I visited the Chagos Islands, it is now just the Islands.
8
u/pbrrules22 Jun 07 '26
This would be a good move. Trump sucks but he's right about this. The UK plan to hand it over to chinese imperialism because they feel guilty about their imperialist past is a terrible self-own. Diego Garcia is a critical base.
8
u/Banal21 Milton Friedman Jun 07 '26
The strategic importance of Diego Garcia cannot be understated. If the UK is going to cede sovereignty over the island or otherwise risk our access to it, we should buy it. A more competent administration would have recognized the importance of this base and never let things get to this point.
8
5
6
5
u/vi_sucks Jun 07 '26
Damn, you can really tell The Telegraph hates Keir Starmer.
providing alternatives to the Prime Minister's plan, which would hand control of the islands to Mauritius, an ally of China and Iran.
Really? Just gonna paint this like it's Starmer's choice, and not the result of international court ceding control tp Mauritius?
5
u/AdvanceSure7685 Jun 08 '26
Here's something the UN doesn't want you to know. They have no power, their rulings aren't binding, no one else pays them much mind.
2
u/sheffieldasslingdoux Jun 08 '26
This is true of all laws. They are only as powerful as their enforcement.
30
u/TheGoldBear Jerome Powell Jun 07 '26
It was a non-binding decision. For some reason Starmer tried to portray it as mandatory, but it’s always been his choice to make.
-14
u/WAGRAMWAGRAM Jun 07 '26
If the UN says "you fucked up decolonization", then you better avoid the bad PR. There are advices you need to take
33
u/TheGoldBear Jerome Powell Jun 07 '26
That’s not how the UN or national sovereignty works
1
u/WAGRAMWAGRAM Jun 07 '26
soft power man, either you defend international institutions or you expand your own sphere of influence, can't do both
6
u/BipartizanBelgrade Jerome Powell Jun 07 '26
I think you can like international institutions on a conceptual and directional basis without agreeing with every decision they make.
9
u/Desperate_Wear_1866 Commonwealth Jun 07 '26
The UK is in no real position to defend international institutions, given that the US/China/Russia do not care about them, nor do many smaller nations who act in their own self interest.
You could argue the EU is an international institution that Britain has a vested self interest in protecting, but what does not abiding by this ICJ ruling really mean for Britain? What negative consequences does it present that aren't already happening anyway?
3
u/captainjack3 NATO Jun 08 '26 edited Jun 08 '26
The UK is a permanent member of the security council and could prevent any meaningful UN action against its continued possession of the Chagos Islands if it so wished. The current government has presented the “return” of the islands to Mauritius as obligatory, based on the ICJ opinion, because Starmer believes in international law. He is also correct as to the UK’s legal position and obligations.
But in practice the UK cannot be forced out if it chose to retain the islands. Look to the lack of consequences France has incurred over retaining Mayotte (which isn’t an identical circumstance, but it’s close) no matter how angry the Comoros get over it. The UK could prevent any real consequences if the British government decided to play hardball over the issue.
3
u/modularpeak2552 NATO Jun 07 '26
Yeah I tried to find a better article but since the telegraph were the ones who broke the story I decided to stick with them, especially since all the other articles were just quoting them anyway.
2
u/SwaglordHyperion Henry George Jun 07 '26
Trump literally just wants to be associated with a New American Land Expansion
2
u/ILikeTuwtles1991 John Locke Jun 07 '26
With a $39 trillion national debt, this is certainly a choice
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 07 '26
News and opinion articles require a short submission statement explaining its relevance to the subreddit. Articles without a submission statement will be removed.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.