[bpodgursky]

> African nations began to speak with one voice on the issue, pushing the UK hard on the issue of decolonialisation.

I wish the journalists had a little more sophistication on this. African nations began to push the UK on this because China and Russia understand that Diego Garcia is a critical port, and made investment + aid/ bribery + weapons (China / Russia respectively) conditional on forcing the issue.

[aguaviva]

In other words: The African nations have no agency or legitimate motivations of their own, and are just doing what China and Russia bully them to do. Apparently they don't even appreciate the significance of the military base on those islands. It is left for the adults in the room (Russia and China) to think and operate on such a level.

Of course no one here is naive, and we all know already that external operators have their influence, and (though the commenter provides no evidence) it's certainly possible, likely even, that such influence came into play here to some degree.

Nonetheless, the commenter's phrasing and implicit attitude toward these nations seems weirdly patronizing and, well, colonial.

[haberman]

If the characterization is inaccurate, then say so. If not, this is just name calling and mind reading.

[aguaviva]

There's no need, because it's essentially what I said already.

[sealeck]

For context the entire continent of Africa has roughly the same GDP as the UK.

[aguaviva]

For even more context, GDP isn't everything.

[sealeck]

No but if you don't have a scientific base or money it's hard to be a geopolitical power.

[aguaviva]

Of course, but I'm not sure how this applies either.

[mmooss]

Where is some evidence of this version of the story?

[toyg]

I'd like to see your sources on this.

I expect it's a bit simpler than that: anti-colonial policies resonate deeply with African voters, and are very uncontroversial.

[bpodgursky]

African voters, to the extent that they have any vote at all [1], have vastly more important things to care about than a tiny island in the Indian ocean. I would in fact bet a lot of money that vastly fewer than 1% of African voters, in any country, know about the Chagos Islands at all.

[1] Mostly, not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_Africa#/media/Fil...

[aguaviva]

But this is a red herring. Their leaders know all about the issue (which infinitely broader than the matter of those specific islands of course; the supposition that it's just about "a tiny island" being a straw man in itself), of course; and have made their position very clear:

  The African Union on Thursday hailed the “historic political agreement” between the UK and Mauritius regarding the sovereignty of the Chagos Islands.

  “This significant milestone marks a major victory for the cause of Decolonialization, International Law, and the rightful self-determination of the people of Mauritius, bringing to an end to decades of dispute,” African Union Chairman Moussa Faki Mahamat stated in a message posted on X (formerly Twitter).

[toyg]

Yeah but when $dictator shows up on tv and talks about figthing $bloodyColonialists at the UN, it's uncontroversial (regardless of the issue being fought) and takes time from talking about his embezzlement/corruption/etc.

Meanwhile, behind the scenes, they can go cap in hand to $bloodyColonialists and ask "do you want me to shut up? Give me $something".

This requires no shadowy influence from this or that supposed Great Power.

[Thiez]

This all just speaks in favor of decolonialization, does it not? When decolonialisation is complete the $dictator won't be able to use it as a distraction, nor can it be a source of corruption. And apart from that it's a noble and objectively good goal in itself.

[bpodgursky]

No, because they will always find some phantom menace of colonization to complain about.

Look at the Chagos Islands themselves — they were literally not inhabited until Europeans settled them. There's no "decolonization" narrative here, because there's no native population.

Once the UK leaves the Chagos islands, it will be about foreign aid with strings attached, or IMF loans, or foreign investment in farmland, or whatever. It's not a solvable problem.

[toyg]

> they were literally not inhabited until Europeans settled them

Decolonization is not simply about removing troops from here or there, it's about taking responsibility for actions that enriched $motherland at the expense of $colony. French and British colonialists moved people to Chagos for their own profit, and then (together with Americans) ejected their descendants from what had become, by then, a homeland; pushing governments to take responsibility for these actions is the moral thing to do.

[toyg]

Absolutely.

[exdsq]

I believe we will keep the port there with the US?

[mardifoufs]

Ah yes, because the UK has no agency and clearly hasn't shown itself to be very okay at standing up against Russia for example.

[mppm]

Huh? I had the impression that the entire international community (sans UK, US & Israel) has been pushing for this for years, and quite insistently since the 2021 ITLOS judgement. Also, the US will keep it's base as part of the settlement.

[gottorf]

It would be naive to believe that the Chinese will not build a competing naval base there, and encroach upon Mauritius's sovereignty over time.

[mppm]

Apart from this being pure speculation, where exactly would they build it? The archipelago has a tiny land area and the only atoll suitable for building a base is kinda already taken... Also, the primary strategic importance of Diego Garcia is to support US operations in the Middle East, where China has never interfered to any significant extent.

[MaxHoppersGhost]

You could say the same about the South China Sea before the Chinese started building islands out there.

[chilmers]

Also, wouldn't the US and UK insist on a clause in the treaty that Mauritius can't do this?

[fmajid]

They already have a base in Djibouti which is far more useful.