The handing over of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius shows a distinct lack of self-awareness or an awareness of what they signify in the wider scheme of things.
Right now Kier Starmer has signalled that the Labour party is happy to give up territory that the UK owns across the world.
The Chagos handover is not only a signal that Starmer hates Britain and British history, that he fails to understand it. It also is a poke in the eye for relations with America. You know our tenants on Diego Garcia, that we gave a lease to. A lease that is now under threat.
Not only that, relinquishing the islands also send signals to those countries that have historic claims to territories we acquired during times of war or have fought wars over.
The Falklands are a prime example. Why, for instance, would the UK hold onto the Falkland Islands and South Georgia, islands at the other end of the world?
Because they are a strategic resource, that's why. The sea around the Falklands provides much more in revenue than it does (currently) cost to hold onto. However that may now change, given the Labour government's signalling it's willingness to give away strategic territory.
Yes, the Chagos Islands are (were) a strategic resource. Diego Garcia is a landing strip in an Ocean that would cost billions to Police without it. It has become a jumping-off point for Middle-Eastern operations. It is as important as the airfields on Cyprus.
So yet again, territories held by the UK around the World come under scrutiny by those that understand their importance. Forget historic claims, we won them (usually) pretty fairly as spoils of war or some other way. Tough on the people that got beaten, but they've been ours for centuries now. Well before the creation of the United Nations.
Only someone that is hideously crippled by the stigma of imperialism would fail to see the significance of these chunks of rock we own around the world.
Posts
