Diego Garcia is a British colony in the Indian Ocean,from which American bombers patrol the middle east.Their are few places as important to the American military planners as this refuelling base between two continents.
This Island should of been granted independance from Britain in 1965.However,at the insistence of the
US, Harold Wilson told the Mauritains they could have their freedoom only if they gave up the island.Ignoring a United nations resolution that called on the British 'to take no action which would dismember the territory of Mauritius and violate its territorial integrity', the British government did just that,and formed a new colony,called 'the British indain overseas territories'.
In high secrecy British leased the island to Washington for 50 years,the British prefer to deny this now,refurring to a 'joint defence arrangement'.
With the militarisation of their island they were given the status rather like that of the Aborigines
in the nineteen century:they were deemed not to exist.between1965-73 they were removed from their homes,loaded onto ships and planes and dumped in Mauritius.
This terror violated Articles 9 and 13 of the United Nations Declaration of Human rights.
This western foreign policy is formulated almost exclusively through self-righteous,oneway moral/legal screen with positve images of western values and innocence potrayed as threatened,validating a campaign of unrestricted political violence against who ever.....
This true story has been consigned to Oblivion,routinely,by the reporters and historians of power
and is hardly surprising as much of maintream western scholarship has taken hummanity out of the study of nations,congealing it with jargon.
Also in serious journalism,'self-righteous,oneway moral screen' is such a time-honoured tradition
especially with American news programmes such as brand leader Fox news that the most important terrorists are rarely seen.
Also: www.johnpilger.com
Can this action ever be justifyed?
Discuss
This Island should of been granted independance from Britain in 1965.However,at the insistence of the
US, Harold Wilson told the Mauritains they could have their freedoom only if they gave up the island.Ignoring a United nations resolution that called on the British 'to take no action which would dismember the territory of Mauritius and violate its territorial integrity', the British government did just that,and formed a new colony,called 'the British indain overseas territories'.
In high secrecy British leased the island to Washington for 50 years,the British prefer to deny this now,refurring to a 'joint defence arrangement'.
With the militarisation of their island they were given the status rather like that of the Aborigines
in the nineteen century:they were deemed not to exist.between1965-73 they were removed from their homes,loaded onto ships and planes and dumped in Mauritius.
This terror violated Articles 9 and 13 of the United Nations Declaration of Human rights.
This western foreign policy is formulated almost exclusively through self-righteous,oneway moral/legal screen with positve images of western values and innocence potrayed as threatened,validating a campaign of unrestricted political violence against who ever.....
This true story has been consigned to Oblivion,routinely,by the reporters and historians of power
and is hardly surprising as much of maintream western scholarship has taken hummanity out of the study of nations,congealing it with jargon.
Also in serious journalism,'self-righteous,oneway moral screen' is such a time-honoured tradition
especially with American news programmes such as brand leader Fox news that the most important terrorists are rarely seen.
Also: www.johnpilger.com
Can this action ever be justifyed?
Discuss
