The wishes of the Islanders are paramount,

The government spent more than a £1bn and suffered the loss of British and Argentinian lives in the Falklands war, because it said that the wishes of the islanders were paramount, and that they should not be "betrayed". 

For many this was a case of rank  hypocrisy  when it came to the case of the Chagos Islands;  

Now after many years one of  the UK most recent crimes may at last see Justice finally  carried our

The BBC reported that 

 A dispute between the UK and Mauritius over disputed island territory in the Indian Ocean is to be referred to the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

The UN General Assembly voted by 94 countries to 15 that The Hague should examine the legal status of the Chagos Islands.

The former British colony used to be part of Mauritius but was detached in 1965 and is now home to a US airbase.The Foreign Office said it would be an "inappropriate" use of the ICJ."This is a disappointing outcome," a Foreign Office spokesman said: "Sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory is clearly a matter for the UK and Mauritius to resolve ourselves."Taking this dispute to the International Court of Justice is an inappropriate use of the ICJ mechanism."Mauritius, which gained independence from Britain in 1968, argues that the UK broke international law when it separated off the islands before granting Mauritius its independence.

Officially part of the British Indian Ocean Territory, the Chagos were home to the Chagossians, a Bourbonnais Creole speaking people, for more than a century and a half until the United Kingdom evicted them between 1967 and 1973 to allow the United States to build a military base on Diego Garcia, the largest of the Chagos Islands. Since 1971, only the atoll of Diego Garcia is inhabited, and only by military and civilian contracted personnel.

On November 16, 2016, the UK Foreign Office maintained their ban on resettlement of the islands.^] In response to this decision, the Prime Minister of Mauritius expressed his country's plan to advance the sovereignty dispute to the International Court of Justice.^] The British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has sought Indian assistance for resolving the dispute involving UK, USA and Mauritius. India has maintained considerable influence in Mauritius through deep cultural and economic ties. While India has maintained that the matter of whether or not to proceed with the UN General Assembly move is a decision for the Mauritian government to make.

On 23 June 2017, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) voted in favour of referring the territorial dispute between Mauritius and the UK to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in order to clarify the legal status of the Chagos Islands archipelago in the Indian Ocean. The motion was approved by a majority vote with 94 voting for and 15 against.

The Foreign Office said it did not recognise Mauritius's claim to sovereignty over the islands - but that it would return the islands when they were no longer needed for defence.

"We have committed to cede them to Mauritius when the territory is no longer required for defence purposes," the spokesman said."At present it plays an important role in regional and global security, helping to keep the UK, US and other allies, including Mauritius, safe."

Safe from whom?

The government said it would "robustly defend" its position ahead of the ICJ's decision, which would not be legally binding.

During the Blair=Brown years there was a small hope that justice for the Islanders would be met , but to no avail.

It would be encouraging if Labour were to back the case of the Islanders now,

Most EU countries abstained from the vote, which BBC diplomatic correspondent James Landale described as an "embarrassing diplomatic defeat" for the UK.

He said it signalled that Britain's diplomatic clout had waned after the vote for Brexit.

In 2015, the UK Supreme Court denied a legal challenge by former islanders to return to Chagos after being removed more than 40 years ago.

The court rejected claims that islanders suffered a "significant injustice" by being forcibly removed from their homeland.which seems to me one of the most ridiculous directions ever made  .

 What other reason can we find in these two treatments  of the Falk;amfs and Chargos other than one group is brown-skinned and the other white settlers?