Right now, the sewer that is social media is full of a peculiar kind of feculence that I will refer to as "Chagos British Nationalism."
This is a form of emotionally incontinent, informationally challenged British nationalism that expresses extreme butthurt over the handover of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, from which they were detached in 1965 (three years before the UK gave Mauritius its independence).
This form of nationalism, characterised by extremely decontextualised takes and hysteria, is now being pumped and pushed by everyone from Tory leader Kemi Badenoch to the whole of Reform UK to Reform's dark-money-funded TV channel (K)GB News.
This is a form of emotionally incontinent, informationally challenged British nationalism that expresses extreme butthurt over the handover of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, from which they were detached in 1965 (three years before the UK gave Mauritius its independence).
This form of nationalism, characterised by extremely decontextualised takes and hysteria, is now being pumped and pushed by everyone from Tory leader Kemi Badenoch to the whole of Reform UK to Reform's dark-money-funded TV channel (K)GB News.
The spiel goes something like this (from Kemi Badenoch's Twitter):
"Chagos has been ours since 1814. It hosts a vital military base. Surrendering it to Mauritius is an act of national self-harm.It leaves us more exposed to China, and ignores the will of the Chagossian people.AND WE'RE PAYING BILLIONS TO DO SO!"
This is funny because it was the Tories who actually started the process of handing over the islands and doing this same deal with Mauritius. I remember first hearing about it when Liz Truss was Prime Minister. Now that they are out of government they are suddenly dead against it.
Or there is this ludicrous piece of cheap hysteria from an obviously astroturfed alt-media figure:
"Keir Starmer is the Chamberlain of our time. Today, he’s set to hand over the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, a state backed by Beijing, while British taxpayers foot an eye-watering £52 billion bill. It’s a moment of national humiliation. The sun has finally set on Britain."
What seems to upset the Brit ignorantii commenting on social media the most is the notion that the UK is giving up not only a part of its "great empire," but also a nice sunny tropical island that prompts fever dreams of escaping their native damp and fog.
Britain and the Chagos Islands be like this. Why break them up, tho?
The fact that the deal involves paying Mauritius around £3.4 billion over the next 100 years (not £52 billion!) is a secondary consideration.
These easily manipulated idiots (and the shills pushing their buttons) present a view that has little real understanding of the deal or the thinking behind it, which, to be fair, invites a variety of opinions. It is, however, not the abject act of surrender that it is being portrayed as.
My own view is not aligned with that of the UK government either, but it is not based on emotionally incontinent witterings about fake "British greatness," or ridiculous stabs at geopolitical paranoia, like that attempted by the Conservative Party's own Nigerian anchor baby.
In her tweet, quoted above, Badenoch purports to see the deal as some kind of stepping stone to a Chinese invasion of Britain, despite the intervening 10,000 nautical miles.
These easily manipulated idiots (and the shills pushing their buttons) present a view that has little real understanding of the deal or the thinking behind it, which, to be fair, invites a variety of opinions. It is, however, not the abject act of surrender that it is being portrayed as.
My own view is not aligned with that of the UK government either, but it is not based on emotionally incontinent witterings about fake "British greatness," or ridiculous stabs at geopolitical paranoia, like that attempted by the Conservative Party's own Nigerian anchor baby.
In her tweet, quoted above, Badenoch purports to see the deal as some kind of stepping stone to a Chinese invasion of Britain, despite the intervening 10,000 nautical miles.
The problem with the deal is this: the UK likes to have a larger geopolitical footprint than it perhaps merits. If this is what you want (and this can of course be questioned) then using soft power and working with partners and coalitions is an absolute necessity, and also a real cost saver.
But in order to get these benefits, you need to be seen as "moral," as the global good guy, and whiter than white. Being the "colonial cunt" that kicked the "poor little Chagossians" off their islands so the Yanks could have a nice big military base there, is, how shall I say, "problematic," especially when you're trying to suck up to the Global South as Britain is.
Britain, let me be clear, is not interested in following the same pariah path that Israel is on.
When the International Court of Justice passed an "advisory opinion" in 2019 that the UK's control of the Chagos Islands was "unlawful" (due to detaching the islands from Mauritius in 1965), it was backed by a heavy vote in the UN General Assembly, with 116 votes against Britain and only 6 for.
Needless to say, this placed the UK in a difficult position because our "number one ally" America desperately needed to keep using the base there to beef up its faltering Middle East presence and the weakening petrodollar.
But in order to get these benefits, you need to be seen as "moral," as the global good guy, and whiter than white. Being the "colonial cunt" that kicked the "poor little Chagossians" off their islands so the Yanks could have a nice big military base there, is, how shall I say, "problematic," especially when you're trying to suck up to the Global South as Britain is.
Britain, let me be clear, is not interested in following the same pariah path that Israel is on.
When the International Court of Justice passed an "advisory opinion" in 2019 that the UK's control of the Chagos Islands was "unlawful" (due to detaching the islands from Mauritius in 1965), it was backed by a heavy vote in the UN General Assembly, with 116 votes against Britain and only 6 for.
Needless to say, this placed the UK in a difficult position because our "number one ally" America desperately needed to keep using the base there to beef up its faltering Middle East presence and the weakening petrodollar.
The deal reached, which is now very much approved of by the Trump Administration, is to essentially "give" the islands back to Mauritius and then lease them back. This is designed to get round this problem of maintaining hard power (US surveillance and bombers) while retaining soft power (the UK as a kind of cuddly global Paddington Bear).
That's where the costs of £3.4 billion over 100 years come in. This is mainly leasing fees, but also includes funds to "look after the baby" of the approximately 10,000 Chagossians and their descendants evicted from the islands by Britain between 1967 and 1973.
That's where the costs of £3.4 billion over 100 years come in. This is mainly leasing fees, but also includes funds to "look after the baby" of the approximately 10,000 Chagossians and their descendants evicted from the islands by Britain between 1967 and 1973.
The deal also includes measures to prevent other foreign powers, like China, from establishing military bases and surveillance facilities on any of the Islands, pushing up the cost a little more. The UK even retains a right of first refusal after the lease term ends, ensuring an almost permanent say in the security of the archipelago.
Whether you agree with all this or not -- and I don't -- the deal is a fairly reasonable and rational solution to a UK government that is attempting to square the circle of being the global good guy to its partners and friends in the Commonwealth and the Global South; while also serving the hard power requirements of the US, which really, really wants to have this base.
My criticism of all this is that the old order of global alliances hinged on a pragmatic USA, combined with a "rules based" international system, which post-Imperial Britain was comfortable operating in, has started to look increasingly ragged and threadbare since the advent of Donald Trump.
Stocks in hard power are rising, while those in soft power are falling. In such a world, having a territory this far from Britain could prove an extremely expensive liability.
Stocks in hard power are rising, while those in soft power are falling. In such a world, having a territory this far from Britain could prove an extremely expensive liability.
But what really stinks about Chagos British Nationalism is the contemptuous attempt by calculating politicians and malicious Kremlin shit stirrers to use the inability of the moronic social media herd to understand complex issues to generate a stampede of hysteria for their own ends. Don't be duped.
____________________
Colin Liddell is the Chief Editor of Neokrat and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the dead and the famous. Support his work by buying his book here (USA), here (UK), and here (Australia), or by taking out a paid subscription on his Substack.
Follow on Twitter and Bluesky
Follow on Twitter and Bluesky
No comments:
Post a Comment
All Comments MUST include a name (either real or sock). Also don't give us an easy excuse to ignore your brilliant comment by using "shitposty" language.