Collector coins of Britain's uninhabited overseas territories

[<k>]

This thread raises another question.

Some of the territories listed are in practice inhabited, although not permanently.* The people there must use some form of money - or at least must have used some form of cash in the days before electronic payments may have made cash completely unnecessary in such places. Do/did they use standard sterling? Or Falklands currency on South Georgia and in the BAT? US dollars in BIOT?

So far as I can find from the web, standard sterling is used in all these places. In practice, I can imagine the US personnel on BIOT using USD, however.

[<k>]

This threads opens a question of interest to me: what is the status of these pieces. I don't know the details of each of them, so I'll take the Sandwich etc. piece in reply #2 as an example.

This piece was struck by Pobjoy mint, a UK private company. As the islands are not inhabited, there is obviously no way Pobjoy could have obtained permission from the natives. In principle, that would make the piece a fantasy, rather than a pseudo coin.

In practice, the responsibility for these pieces of rock probably rests with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). <k> suggests that it was part of a government policy to have these coins struck (which immediately raises the question why Pobjoy and not the Royal Mint).

Among some numismatists, the Pobjoy Mint may not be greatly respected, but since the collapse of the Birmingham Mint, it is the oldest private mint in the UK and is presumably not regarded with disdain officially. The Royal Mint often used to subcontract work to the Birmingham Mint that it couldn't handle itself. I do not know whether it has such an arrangement with the Pobjoy Mint. However, in theory any coin or stamp bearing the Queen's portrait is supposed to be authorised by her, and I do know of one stamp set (Thomas Hardy) that she objected to, though her reasons were never made public.

The fact that Ian Rank-Broadley's special portrait of the Queen, seen above, was used on all coins suggests to me that official permission WAS given. Furthermore, all these territories appear in Gerhard Schön's 'Weltmünzkatalog' (world coin catalogue). He is an assiduous researcher and would not have included them if they were "fantasies". I am British, and I have never heard these pieces called "fantasies". I therefore regard them as official and legitimate collector coins.

We all know that colonies still exist - it is just that they are called "overseas territories" these days. Any colony that wanted to leave the British Empire or Commonwealth has long since done so. Those permanently populated territories that remain British, such as Bermuda, have chosen to do so because they find some benefit in it, and Britain generally governs with a light hand these days, giving the overseas territories as much autonomy as they can take. Since the current world hegemon, the USA, has a base on BIOT, I don't think it would want to give the UK any trouble over these flyspecks. Britain has no compunction in telling Argentina where to go when it makes demands about the Falklands, South Georgia, and British Antarctic Territory.

Given that Britain owns the three territories featured in this topic, and the world knows it, why should it be afraid to proclaim it? They are not permanently inhabited, and the British legal authorities have run rings around those poor Chagossians, very few in number now, who were expelled from their homeland (now in BIOT) and still want to return. The fact that these coins are largely also used to promote the monarchy should also tell you something. When 'Queen Elizabeth Land' was created in BAT to honour the Queen, this fact was duly commemorated on a BAT coin. I think this tells you all you need to know. I do not know what goes on behind closed doors or in the Pobjoy Mint, but Pobjoy is British and would surely not get away with making fantasies or using the Queen's portrait without her permission.

[<k>]

Wikipedia's use of the word 'native' in relation to the populations of these places troubles me. What constitutes a 'native' population? People born there (the literal meaning of the word)? Descendants of the first known cultural group to live there? I can't help feeling that cans of worms are being unnecessarily opened by Wikipedia's terminology here.

One definition I found says simply this:

"A person born in a specified place or associated with a place by birth, whether subsequently resident there or not."

So I don't see the problem. We all know these days that people anywhere rarely belong to only one ethnic group or heritage, and that has been the case for centuries, except in the remotest parts of the world. We know how imperialists used to use the word, but we are no longer imperialists, so the word should be reclaimed, and used to mean anyone either born in a place or now permanently resident there.

[<k>]

From Wikipedia:

Awards

Since 1984, Pobjoy Mint has been presented with eighteen awards and other accolades including fourteen Coin of the Year Awards; the Queen's Award for Export Achievement in 1990; the Vreneli-Preis, which was awarded to Derek Pobjoy by Münzen-Revue for outstanding contribution to numismatics, in 1993; and the ISO 9001 2008 quality mark, which was awarded by BSI in recognition of the overall high standards of quality and customer service achieved by the mint.



From the Pobjoy web site "About us":

The Pobjoy Mint has struck commemorative and circulating coins for the Isle of Man, Ascension Islands, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Bolivia, British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Burundi, Cook Islands, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Falkland Islands, Gambia, Gibraltar, Jamaica, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Macau, Nigeria, Niue, Peru, Philippines, Pitcairn Islands, St Helena, Senegal, Seychelles, Republic of Sierra Leone, Somaliland, South Georgia & South Sandwich Islands, Spain, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Tokelau, Tonga, Tristan da Cunha, Uzbekistan, Western Samoa and Vanuatu.

Many medallion issues have also been produced, notably for Hong Kong, Malaysia and the Arab States. The mint has produced over 50,000 medallions for world wide nature. In 1996 Pobjoy Mint issued the world's first hologram coin, the image is carefully struck in the coin to produce an unusual colour effect and in 1999 the World's first Titanium coin.

[<k>]

From Pobjoy:

Awards

Since 1984 when the Pobjoy Mint was awarded its first Coin of the Year Award, various other awards and accolades have been bestowed upon the Mint. These include the prestigious Queen's Award for Export and in 1991 it was nominated in eight categories for the Coin of the Year Award 1990 and was extremely proud when it won four awards including the Overall Coin of the Year;
-
-
-
2010 COTY Most Innovative Coin, First Place Unique Idea Solution for the Silver & Blue Crystal Life of the Turtle


Designing a Coin

    The design for a coin may come from a photograph, a painting or even a piece of sculpture.
    It has to be translated into a preliminary drawing in the shape of the eventual coin, together with the lettering value and symbolic elements.
    The finished design is sent to the government body for approval.
    Any coin which has the Queen's effigy on the obverse also has to be submitted to Her Majesty's Government and ultimately to Buckingham Palace for the Queen's assent.

Here you see the Coin of the Year winner of 2010: a BIOT collector coin - not a "fantasy".

[FosseWay]

So I don't see the problem. We all know these days that people anywhere rarely belong to only one ethnic group or heritage, and that has been the case for centuries, except in the remotest parts of the world. We know how imperialists used to use the word, but we are no longer imperialists, so the word should be reclaimed, and used to mean anyone either born in a place or now permanently resident there.

I quite agree.

However, the reality is that the word 'native' has 'baggage'. These days the baggage is diametrically opposite to the colonial-era meaning you alluded to, when the word was used pejoratively more or less as a synonym for 'backward'. Now 'native' peoples (or more accurately the non-native politically correct brigade who have taken it upon themselves to fight other people's battles for them) use the word as a stick to bash 'colonists' with in those areas of the world where Western European civilisation displaced local cultures. The most obvious example is probably Native American peoples, especially in North America, but in my neck of the woods the same applies to the Sámi in northern Sweden, Finland and Norway.

Don't get me wrong. I do not condone the persecution, forced religious conversion and often out-and-out genocide that was practised by the ethnic group I belong to against these peoples in the past. I fully support their right to self-determination and to express their culture as they see fit. From an academic point of view I support the conservation of minority languages (and artistic styles, for that matter). But I support those things in respect of ALL human societies and ethnicities. To describe the Sámi as 'native' implies that northern Swedes, Finns and Norwegians who are not ethnically, culturally and/or linguistically Sámi are not natives of the areas where they, and quite possibly their grandparents, were born. This is factually wrong and IMV belittling and derogatory. Furthermore, labelling people in this way does not in itself do anything to promote the cultural and linguistic strength and identity that all ethnic groups need.

[<k>]

BRITISH INDIAN OCEAN TERRITORY

Chagossians say extension of agreement for US to use Diego Garcia as military base is yet another betrayal by UK

Chagos islanders plead for end to 50-year exile as UK-US deal rolls over

New Year's Eve marks the conclusion of a 50-year agreement under which the UK has allowed the US to use the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia as a military base. On New Year's Day the agreement will be rolled over into a new one lasting a further 20 years.

The agreement lay behind the forcible removal of residents from the Chagos Islands, of which Diego Garcia is the main island, triggering a battle for their right to return home that has lasted for half a century.

The government has consistently rejected the Chagossians' pleas that they should be allowed to resettle on the islands. For the Chagossians' supporters, the extension of the agreement with the US represents yet another betrayal by the UK.

"It is a missed and wasted opportunity," said David Snoxell, coordinator of the Chagos Islands all-party parliamentary group and a former British high commissioner to Mauritius. "The end of the 50 years was a deadline to bring the whole thing to an end and enshrine a new UK/US agreement that would confirm the willingness of both parties to allow and facilitate a pilot resettlement, preferably on Diego Garcia."

[<k>]

UN vote backing Chagos Islands a blow for UK

Mauritius supported by 94 nations in move to consult The Hague over colonial hold of Indian Ocean territory by British

Owen Bowcott

Thursday 22 June 2017

UN vote backing Chagos Islands a blow for UK


The UK has suffered a humiliating defeat at the United Nations general assembly in a vote over decolonisation and its residual hold over disputed territory in the Indian Ocean.

By a margin of 94 to 15 countries, delegates supported a Mauritian-backed resolution to seek an advisory opinion from the international court of justice (ICJ) in The Hague on the legal status of the Chagos Islands.

A further 65 countries abstained on Thursday, including many EU states who might have been expected to vote in support of another bloc member.

Among EU members who abstained were France, Germany, Spain, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, Estonia, Latvia, Greece and Finland. Canada and Switzerland also abstained.

Speaking after the vote Jagdish Koonjul, the Mauritian representative at the UN, said: "I'm elated. The results are beyond my expectations. It's interesting that the EU didn't support the UK. Even some of the countries that supported the UK agreed that this was an issue of decolonisation. Now we wait to see what the UK will do as a result of the vote. We have given the US full comfort of a long-term lease [for the Diego Garcia base] that would be renewable [if sovereignty passed to Mauritius]."

The resolution, though only in favour of obtaining a non-binding legal opinion, is a blow to the UK's international prestige and demonstrates the limited diplomatic influence wielded by the British foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, at the UN.

The row between Mauritius and the UK – over what Britain terms BIOT, or British Indian Ocean Territory – has become increasingly acrimonious in recent years.

In 1965, three years before Mauritius was granted independence, the UK decided to separate the Chagos Islands, an archipelago, from the rest of its Indian Ocean colony. The Mauritian government claims this was in breach of UN resolution 1514, passed in 1960, which specifically banned the breakup of colonies before independence.

Most of the 1,500 islanders were deported so that the largest island, Diego Garcia, could be leased to the US for a strategic airbase in 1971. The US was one of the few countries that publicly backed the UK over the islands' fate. The islanders have never been allowed to return home.

The UK has promised to return the Chagos Islands to Mauritius when they are no longer needed for defence purposes, but has refused to give a date.

Two years ago Mauritius won a ruling at the permanent court of arbitration at The Hague saying Britain had acted illegally in the way it had exercised territorial control over the Chagos Islands. The court criticised the UK for failing to consult over establishing a marine protection zone around what is now the British Indian Ocean Territory.

The fact that Diego Garcia was used by the CIA after 9/11 in rendition and interrogation operations may have alienated many states from the UK's cause.

Urging delegates at the UN general assembly to oppose the resolution, the UK permanent representative, Matthew Rycroft, warned: "This could set a precedent that many of you in this hall could come to regret." He added that "the resolution for an advisory opinion is an attempt by the government of Mauritius to circumvent the principle" – referring to the principle that a state could only be involved at the ICJ through its own consent.

The UK, Rycroft added, would not consent to the Chagos Islands being taken to the court. The dispute, he said, should be left as a bilateral issue for the UK and Mauritius to deal with through direct negotiations, and that the Chagos Islands were still needed for security purposes.

Philipe Sands QC, who attended the UN debate, and is acting as legal counsel for Mauritius, said: "The vote, passed with an overwhelming majority, sends a strong signal about the UN's attachment to decolonisation. That Britain was able to obtain the support of barely a dozen countries, including just four EU members and no permanent member of the security council apart from the US, will, hopefully, give it pause for thought about its position on Chagos.

"Its arguments that Chagos is about security and a bilateral matter between it and Mauritius were given short shrift. The message is clear: the UN wants the world court to rule on Chagos, and seeks the court's advice and assistance in bringing colonialism to an end."

Advisory opinions at the ICJ are normally triggered by a formal request from the UN secretary general. The court can request submissions from member states and those involved in a dispute.

Although its findings are normally non binding, the ICJ's advisory opinions carry some legal influence and moral authority.

David Snoxell, coordinator of the all party parliamentary group on the Chagos Islands and a former British diplomat, welcomed the UN vote.

"This was a brilliant result for Mauritius and the Chagossians. Apart from the sovereignty issue, now referred to the ICJ, the resolution was a means of bringing to the attention of the UN general assembly the travesty of the UK's treatment of the Chagossian people since 1965 when the [general assembly] last considered the Chagos Islands," Snoxell said.

"174 states took part in the debate but only 15 sided with the UK. That sends a clear message to the British government that the UN expects the UK to bring this relic of the cold war to an end."

[eurocoin]

Very interesting. In my opinion the Chagos Islands should belong to a country which respects the (descendants of the) original inhabitants of the islands. The United Kingdom has proven not to be a good candidate so maybe Mauritius will do better. Many of the original inhabitants of the Chagos archipel moved to Mauritius after they were forced to leave the islands.

[<k>]

Apparently the four EU countries who voted with the UK and against the resolution were Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary and Lithuania. None of these countries has traditionally had close ties to the UK, so you might wonder why they voted as they did.

It seems likely that "BIOT" will soon become a relic of the past, and then the collector coins may eventually come to seem more desirable.

[FosseWay]

Very interesting. In my opinion the Chagos Islands should belong to a country which respects the (descendants of the) original inhabitants of the islands. The United Kingdom has proven not to be a good candidate so maybe Mauritius will do better. Many of the original inhabitants of the Chagos archipel moved to Mauritius after they were forced to leave the islands.

I agree entirely, but there is a further problem to factor in. It's not just that the UK has behaved appallingly towards the islands (though it's very true that it has); part of the BIOT is leased to the US military. Regardless of who the titular owner of the land is, there is nothing stopping that owner  - e.g. Mauritius - choosing or being forced to continue leasing the islands to the US military. That does not advance the cause of the displaced islanders one jot; it just moves responsibility for doing something about it from a relatively major country in the developed world that chooses to do nothing to a very small one in the developing world that probably can't do anything. The UN resolution should IMV have included something about how the islands are used, not simply who claims sovereignty over them.

[<k>]

From the Guardian, UK:

Mauritius takes UK to court over Chagos Islands sovereignty

The UK's possession of a remote archipelago in the Indian Ocean is being challenged at the international court of justice. Judges will spend four days from Monday hearing representatives from 22 countries arguing over colonial history and the rights of exiled islanders to return.

The overwhelming majority of states intervening in the dispute oppose Britain's assertion that it has sovereignty over what it calls British Indian Ocean Territory, or BIOT. Only the US, Australia and Israel are expected to support the UK.

Three years before Mauritius was granted independence, the UK decided to separate the Chagos Islands from the rest of the colony. The Mauritian government claims this breached UN resolution 1514, passed in 1960, which specifically banned the breakup of colonies before independence. Most of the 1,500 islanders were deported so that the largest island, Diego Garcia, could be leased to the US for a strategic airbase in 1971. The islanders have never been allowed to return home. The UK has promised to return the Chagos Islands to Mauritius when they are no longer needed for defence purposes, but refuses to give a date.

Many deported Chagossians live in the UK. In July, they held a four-day protest in Trafalgar Square against their continued exile and their descendants' uncertain immigration status in the UK.

A Foreign Office (UK) spokeswoman said: "We are disappointed that Mauritius have taken this bilateral dispute to the international court of justice. This is an inappropriate use of the ICJ advisory opinion mechanism and sets a dangerous precedent for other bilateral disputes. We will robustly defend our position. While we do not recognise the Republic of Mauritius's claim to sovereignty of the archipelago, we have repeatedly undertaken to cede it to Mauritius when no longer required for defence purposes, and we maintain that commitment."

[eurocoin]

Chagos Islands dispute: UK obliged to end control - UN

Chagos Islands dispute: UK obliged to end control - UN

The UK should end its control of the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean "as rapidly as possible", the UN's highest court has said.

Mauritius claims it was forced to give up the islands - now a British overseas territory - in 1965 in exchange for independence, which it gained in 1968. The International Court of Justice said the islands were not lawfully separated from the former colony of Mauritius.

The UK Foreign Office said: "This is an advisory opinion, not a judgment." It added it would look "carefully" at the detail of the opinion, which is not legally binding.

The UK has previously said it will hand the islands back to Mauritius when they are no longer required for defence purposes. Referencing that, the Foreign Office said: "The defence facilities on the British Indian Ocean Territory help to protect people here in Britain and around the world from terrorist threats, organised crime and piracy."

Judge Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf described the UK's administration of the Chagos Islands - located more than 2,000 miles off the east coast of Africa - as "an unlawful act of continuing character". He added the UK was "under an obligation to bring an end to its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible".

The UN General Assembly asked the court in February 2017 to offer its opinion in on whether the process had been concluded lawfully.

It is half a century since the UK took control of the Chagos Islands from its then colony, Mauritius. The British government evicted the entire population, before inviting the US to build a military base on Diego Garcia, one of the larger atolls. Mauritius was in the middle of negotiating its independence from the UK at the time and has repeatedly condemned the deal.

Analysis

A "blockbuster" of an opinion from the UN's highest court.

The judges' assessment was damning. At the heart of it, the right of all people to self-determination as a basic human right, which the UK violated when dismembering its former colony. The detachment of the strategically valuable archipelago cannot have been said to be based on free and genuine expression of the will of the people concerned, when one side is under the authority of the other.

As the ruling power, the responsibility lay with the UK to respect national unity and territory integrity of Mauritius as required under international law. Instead, it divided the territory - effectively using the process of decolonisation to create a new colony.

As part of the advisory opinion the judges poignantly pointed out that all UN member states were under obligation to cooperate to complete the decolonisation of Mauritius. This includes, of course, the US, which operates a military base on the largest atoll of Diego Garcia.

Some of those who were forced to leave their homes on the Chagos Islands in the late 1960s hoped they would be allowed to return - and not just on one of the rare visits authorised by the UK.

Speaking to the BBC last year, Samynaden Rosemond, who left when he was 36, said: "Back home was paradise." He and his wife, Daryela, moved to the outskirts of the capital of Mauritius, Port Louis. Chagossians often complain that they are treated as second-class citizens in Mauritius, and they often gather to cook coconut and fish curry and to sing songs about the life they left behind. Mr Rosemond added: "The British didn't give us a chance. They just said: 'Oh, this is not yours anymore.' "If I die here my spirit will be everywhere - it wouldn't be happy. But if I die there I will be in peace."

'Explosion of joy'

Several Chagossians gathered at the Chagos Refugee Group's centre to follow live the session of the International Court of Justice in The Hague. It was in an explosion of joy that the news was celebrated by both them and their descendants in Pointe aux Sables - a suburb of the Mauritian capital, Port Louis.

The leader of the Chagos Refugees Group, Olivier Bancoult, said it was a historic day. "I dedicate this victory to the entire Chagossian community that is scattered in several countries around the world," he said. "It is a great victory as all the time we wanted to go gather on the graves of our families that we lost there [on the Chagos Archipelago]".

Mauritian Prime Minister Pravind Jugnauth said the UK had always emphasised respect for international laws and, as such, expected the country, with which Mauritius has excellent relations, to respect the judges' opinion.

[<k>]

No reasonable person could argue with that verdict - British or not. It is sad that so many Chagossians will have died without having been able to return home.

[eurocoin]

Hopefully the Chagossians will now soon finally be able to return. Regardless of what the UK government may insinuate, advisory opinions carry great legal weight and moral authority. The remark from the court that "all UN member states are under obligation to cooperate to complete the decolonisation of Mauritius" (which includes the US) is more than it was asked and very good news for the islanders.