Souveraineté : « The detachment of the Chagos Archipelago was already decided whether Mauritius gave its consent or not “

Le Dissenting Ruling de la Permanent Court of Arbitration sur le Marine Protected Area des Chagos sous la Convention des Droits de la Mer est une cinglante gifle  administrée à Londres au sujet du démembrement du territoire de Maurice à la veille de l’inedépendance. C’est ce que soulignent les juges Kateka and Wolfrum dans un jugement de 25 pages rendus le 18 mars à La Haye.
« The detachment of the Chagos Archipelago was already decided whether Mauritius gave its consent or not. A look at the discussion between Prime Minister Harold Wilson and Premier Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam suggests that the Wilson’s threat that Ramgoolam could return home without independence amounts to duress. The Private Secretary of Wilson used the language of “frighten[ing]” the Premier “with hope”. The Colonial Secretary equally resorted to the language of intimidation,”font-ils ressortir aux paragraphes 76 et 77 du document.
Plus loin le Dissenting Ruling remet en question la validité du consentement accordé par le Council of Minuisters de 1965 et ajoute : « The Council of Ministers of Mauritius was presided over by the British Governor who could nominate some of the members of the Council. Thus there was a clear situation of inequality between the two sides. As Mauritius states, if the Mauritian people, through their Government, had made a free choice without coercion, they could have given valid consent in the pre-independence period to the excision of the Chagos Archipelago. This was not the case. If it is accepted that the consent given is invalid on either of the two grounds mentioned above, the question is to be raised why it took Mauritius so long to make this point”.
En conclusion, le communiqué de la Cour Permanente d’Arbitrage note que “on the merits, Judges Kateka and Wolfrum would have found that the Mauritian Ministers were coerced in 1965 into agreeing to detachment and that the United Kingdom’s detachment of the Archipelago violated the international law of self-determination.”
A sujet des chagos, les juges notent avec force que “British and American defence interests were put above Mauritius’s rights” both in 1965 when the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) was established and in 2010 when the marine zone, which involves a ban on fishing, was set up."

Commentaires

Pourquoi parlez vous de victoire;de gifles etc.. =====Les anglais ont toujours su que ces îles ne leurs appartient pas .........
AS STIPULATED ============================ -United Nations' resolutions banned the dismemberment of colonial territories before independence. Mauritius has repeatedly asserted that the British claim that the Chagos Archipelago is one of its territories is a violation of law and of UN resolutions. The UK has stated that it has no doubt about its sovereignty over the Chagos but has also said that the Chagos will be returned to Mauritius once the islands are no longer required for defense purposes.====================================

The question is: Where did the money go ?Please help me.
J.

By any means the conduct of the British Colonial' was an abject judgement . However, the jurisdiction of the British extended to beyond the Seychelles archipelago and who is to say that such and such island is part of that territorial Jurisdiction as indeed the Seychelles were once administered fromMAURITIUS. However, let not depart from the truth here , RAMGOOLAM AND JUGNAUGHT were present and did consent to this evil act and to the harsh consequence of the Chagosiens to date. Let not the factual issues of relevance be subtly changed some 47 years after independence...It was within the prerogative of the British Administration to even split Rodrigues or declarer's autonomous administration...or retain the island and The Rodriguais would not have resisted ..... This International Arbitration Court could not determined the issue of 1967 with the more liberal world of 2015 . The British did wrong but thRAMGOOLAM AND JUGNAUGHT committed an evil betrayal s possessed and motivated in their Communalist mind..

The delegation from Mauritius comprised not only the Prime minister but other members of different parties.It begs the question, why did the members fail to confront the British Prime minister when he audaciously stated that if you did not agree, then you could say goodbye to Independence?Lawyers were in the infamous delegation ,and a contract would be null and void if entered in the conditions mentioned in the judgement of the Arbitration. The question of delegation connotes collective responsibility and had it been otherwise, the Prime minister could have been to UK on his own. What would have been the consequence had the Prime minister called Wilson's bluff? Mauritius did not struggle to win Independence but it got it by stooping low rather than stooping to conquer, entailing the uproot of the inhabitants to be ditched in countries around in abject poverty ! That was the era when the British were getting rid of their colonies.Why was the delegation in a hurry to get independence with strings attached? Am I right to point out that Jugnauth , the current Prime minister was one of the members of that delegation. The ball is in his court to enlighten the gullible population of our paradise island, why did the delegation give in to the threats of Wilson?That is the question.

Atleast this will finally put to rest the baseless claim that SSR sold Diego.