What exactly is the Mauritian connection to the Chagos Archipelago?
Is it just because a lot of Chagossians went to Mauritius after getting kicked out? Obviously Mauritius and Chagos were ruled by the same people previous (French, then British), but is there a deeper history there?
I ask this because the Chagos archipelago is like 1500 miles away from Mauritius - the Maldives, Seychelles, and even Sri Lanka and India are all closer than that. And to my untrained eye, the Chagos archipelago looks like an extension of whatever process created the Maldives.
There isn’t one, as you say it’s over 2000km between them, the only link is that when Britain was administrating them it did so as a single territory. This is not some reunification of a country separated by a colonial power.
I'm assuming if the were ruled as the same entity for a significant amount of time that there was a lot of movement between the two regions during that time with all that implies, intermarriage etc.
All of which would probably still mean there are lots of people still alive from the time the regions were separated that feel themselves to be nonetheless connected and unfairly kept apart.
I imagine for such a small island chain you'd need a "parent" country to provide services, so picking the one where most people when when they were exiled probably makes sense. May also be a language thing?
Curious to know if there will be extension provisions: people think 99 years is a long time (which isn't wrong), but Hong Kong went back to China after that period of time.
Yeah, but Mauritius isn't China. If the UK had reneged on the Hong Kong lease, there were economic and military options for China to potentially enforce it.
A lot can happen in 99 years, but even assuming a serious decline in US economic/military might I don't see a scenario where Mauritius could successfully enforce the lease on its own.
Congratulations! Would you be willing to go into more depth on why you feel relieved? You've spelled out the terms; I'm asking if you might connect the dots between those terms and your feelings about the whole thing.
Also, are you concerned that Diego Garcia might be a target in a war?
The US base on Diego Garcia is an exceptionally nasty bit of history: with the British murdering all the local islanders pet dogs - literally grabbing them from the arms of screaming children and telling them they were next - as part of an intimidation campaign to force them off the island so the US could have it’s intelligence outpost.
For those curious about this history, you can watch John Pilger’s 2004 documentary Stealing a Nation for free on his website: https://johnpilger.com/stealing-a-nation/
> African nations began to speak with one voice on the issue, pushing the UK hard on the issue of decolonialisation.
I wish the journalists had a little more sophistication on this. African nations began to push the UK on this because China and Russia understand that Diego Garcia is a critical port, and made investment + aid/ bribery + weapons (China / Russia respectively) conditional on forcing the issue.
In other words: The African nations have no agency or legitimate motivations of their own, and are just doing what China and Russia bully them to do. Apparently they don't even appreciate the significance of the military base on those islands. It is left for the adults in the room (Russia and China) to think and operate on such a level.
Of course no one here is naive, and we all know already that external operators have their influence, and (though the commenter provides no evidence) it's certainly possible, likely even, that such influence came into play here to some degree.
Nonetheless, the commenter's phrasing and implicit attitude toward these nations seems weirdly patronizing and, well, colonial.
African voters, to the extent that they have any vote at all [1], have vastly more important things to care about than a tiny island in the Indian ocean. I would in fact bet a lot of money that vastly fewer than 1% of African voters, in any country, know about the Chagos Islands at all.
Huh? I had the impression that the entire international community (sans UK, US & Israel) has been pushing for this for years, and quite insistently since the 2021 ITLOS judgement. Also, the US will keep it's base as part of the settlement.
> The remaining British overseas territories are: Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antarctic Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands. There are also two sovereign base areas on Cyprus under British jurisdiction.
And quite a few of those in shady financial dealings. Happily hiding and laundering money for various kleptocrats. It has been noted that, just as the Roman Empire didn't really disappear - it became a church, the British Empire didn't really disappear - it became a bank.
The British government likes to make various noises about cleaning this up, but there are too many businesses in the City of London making money off the system for there to be much chance of that happening.
There will always be some crime in any financial centre, but I think there's limited evidence that there's proportionally more financial crime going on in London than e.g. NYC or Frankfurt.
The two-letter ones are all countries/regions/territories. See also .su for a blast (thankfully not literal) from the past https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.su
TLD "owners" own TLDs in much the same way that we own domains, and it's very possible that ICANN phases out the .io domain when the British Indian Ocean Territory ceases to exist. From what we gathered in the other thread it somewhat depends on what ISO decides to do with its codes.
At a minimum I expect that control over the .io domain will go to Mauritius and they'll be able to reassign it as desired (since they never contracted with the hedge fund). But the typical path for a code when its country goes defunct is to get phased out.
TL;DR: ICANN policy forces deletion if CC disappears from the ISO list of countries, with one famous exception (.su); but Mauritius could cut a Tuvalu-style deal to maintain it.
Hong Kong island was ceded to the British in perpetuity. The 99 years lease of the New Territories (not Hong Kong, technically) was an additional unequal treaty that the Qing were forced into on top of it, after they also had to give up Kowloon. The British could have asked for 150 years too, who'd have stopped them?
Now the same happens to Britain in reverse. There is no benefit for any state to give up territory for nothing in return, why would they be "pretty pleased" about it? Also not only is Britain ceding its territory but they're actually paying rent to keep a base on what was previously their own land! It almost feels like China is involved in this because the number doesn't sound like something Mauritius would come up with on their own. See other 99 year leases the CCP is involved in, they're obsessed with this number:
> It almost feels like China is involved in this because the number doesn't sound like something Mauritius would come up with on their own. See other 99 year leases the CCP is involved in, they're obsessed with this number
Err 99 leases are common in lots of places. 99 years is a bit more than a lifetime so not many people care much about what happens afterwards. And it is a lot shorter than in perpetuity which would look bad for whoever is granting it.
The Chagos Islands were't lawfully "their own land" according to an International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling from 2019, which probably had something to do with this change.
The article posts one reason why they'd give it up: they feel the ongoing issue of the Chagos Islands is hurting their ability to get diplomatic support in other international matters that are far more important to them.
Also decreased oil consumption as a result of renewable energy sources (decreasing the Middle East's importance) and climate change opening up northern shipping routes (decreasing the SE Asia - Suez Canal importance).
In 99 years, being able to exert influence in the region will likely be less important to global trade.
Even if that lease was permanent I doubt the PRC would just let it be. The time limit just meant they could just wait instead of having to negotiate or invade.
Probably not. In 1997 they were happy to court the $$ associated with opening up this huge new market of 1b+ "middle class" consumers.
Id argue they still aren't sufficiently butthurt about it. The UK has sufficient grounds to reclaim HK since china has very much failed to uphold its agreement to keep hong kong democratic for at least 50 years. I guess that's why the CPC goes on gaslighting rants about "whole process democracy" like Jesus CPC. You just had to wait 20 years, what the hell is the rush?
One of the reasons UK didn't contest it in 1997 was that it couldn't. UK "owned" Hong Kong island, which is a tiny bit of territory. Most of what is called Hong Kong was actually leased from China for a definite term, and the lease was coming to an end, fair and square. Hong Kong island was handed over as part of the package.
Hong Kong island is, I would imagine, in no way sustainable as a standalone territory, if China were to be hostile.
In what universe does the UK have grounds to have anything to do with governing a region 6000 miles away from home that it seized during the Opium War?
I would love for China to have democracy, but Great Britain really doesn't have any moral high ground on the issue nor any business having anything to do with the government there.
If you think they aren't sufficiently butthurt about it, I'd counter that by saying "what can they realistically do about it?" The answer is "absolutely nothing." You want them to invade or something?
They can write a nastygram or something but any of the promises involved with the transfer really mean nothing. An analogy would be asking the next owner of your car to not play any Britney Spears on the radio. Good luck enforcing that.
>china has very much failed to uphold its agreement to keep hong kong democratic
That would be a curious failure indeed given that Hong Kong wasn't democratic under the British to begin with. It was a crown colony ruled by an appointed governor. The Brits of course never had any legitimate claim to an island they took after a war whose objective was to force opium into China. If they still have dreams of empire I'm sure China would be delighted to see them try though and see how it goes this time.
Some countries have constitutions that forbid giving up any parts of its territory, but apparently our government can hand over sovereignty without even a vote in parliament
In the UK the executive (ie "the government") makes and ratifies treaties, using delegated authority [1] from the monarch.
There is no general rule that parliament has to ratify, or even scrutinise, a treaty. The main exceptions are if the treaty requires domestic legislation to be passed by parliament, or if the treaty has significant constitutionap implications. Given our un-codified constitution here in the UK, I would imagine the latter constaint comes with some wriggle-room.
This [2] briefing by the House of Commons Library lays it all out.
Yes, of course Parliament will need to vote on this, but the Prime Minister of the UK has approved it and unlike in the US., in the UK votes are predominantly along party lines so it will pass.
Without going into the sentiment of this, I suppose Chaos Islands are not part of the United Kingdom but rather an overseas territory, so more like "property", to put it bluntly. I guess the government can just give away a building it owns, and this is more analogous than giving away "territory". And there is no current indigenous population there either.
But yeah, Jersey is also an overseas territory, can the government just give that away?
Jersey is a Crown Dependency, not an Overseas Territory. They share a King and the UK is responsible for their defense, but domestically Crown Dependencies are more independent of Parliament than your average British overseas territory.
The United Kingdom has parliamentary supremacy with little to no checks or balances, so if the parliament wants to give away something, there is nothing that can really stop them.
I guess this means the sun will now set on the British empire. It’s pretty far west from the Pitcairn Islands to Akrotiri and Dhekelia without the Indian Ocean territory in between.
This is exactly what I thought when I read this. https://what-if.xkcd.com/48/ makes no mention of the islands but I feel like it might cause a sunset now?
Interestingly this includes the military base of Diego Garcia which is strategically important. I imagine the US will pay Mauritius a bucket load of money for continued use.
An attempt to halt the negotiations, on the basis that the Chagossians were not consulted or involved, failed.
Chagossian Voices, a community organisation for Chagossians based in the UK and in several other countries, said of Thursday’s announcement: “Chagossian Voices deplore the exclusion of the Chagossian community from the negotiations which have produced this statement of intent concerning the sovereignty of our homeland. Chagossians have learned this outcome from the media and remain powerless and voiceless in determining our own future and the future of our homeland.
“The views of Chagossians, the Indigenous inhabitants of the islands, have been consistently and deliberately ignored and we demand full inclusion in the drafting of the treaty.”
[later in the article:]
Clive Baldwin, senior legal adviser at HRW, said: “The agreement says it will address the wrongs against the Chagossians of the past but it looks like it will continue the crimes long into the future.
“It does not guarantee that the Chagossians will return to their homeland, appears to explicitly ban them from the largest island, Diego Garcia, for another century, and does not mention the reparations they are all owed to rebuild their future. The forthcoming treaty needs to address their rights, and there should be meaningful consultations with the Chagossians, otherwise the UK, US and now Mauritius will be responsible for a still-ongoing colonial crime.”
bad deal for Mauritius. they didn’t gain any sovereignty, they lost some. why? because now the foreign military base is officially on Maritius soil. so US now has a base in Mauritius just like they have in Japan and other places and those places can’t do anything about it
The article makes it sound like the UK is attempting to gain African influence by returning Chagos while keeping the military bases. Perhaps it's also cheaper to only have the bases since that's the main reason the UK has kept control?
The population there is the single biggest electorate for the far right. Yes, that's right; they are black Muslims yet vote for Le Pen's party around 60%.
That's because the very last thing they want is to rejoin the Comoros and be ruled by their former slavers again; France abolished slavery when it took control of Mayotte, which never was a real independent nation but an island constantly taken over by various Muslim warlords or pirates.
One of the more surreal bits of the situation around Guantanamo bay is that the US was very careful to pay the lease amount(nowdays a trivial $4000 dollers) and Cuba was very careful about not cashing the payments.
Another weird thing was the subject of Cuban workers at the outpost. When relations soured between the countries Cuba wanted to isolate the base completely, And I have no clue about internal Cuban politics, but that stance was then lightened to "no new workers could be hired, but existing ones could stay employed" so for 59 years there was a steadily dwindling number of commuters from Guantanimo city to the base until the last one retired in 2012.
Not true at all, as regards the political aspects. There's also the people living there, or who rather had been until they were forcibly deported[0] long so long ago. And their situation also has very considerable legal and political significance. In regard to which there's also been an ICJ case with several very sharply-worded rulings starting 2019. It is also quite significant in regard to the global movement in favor of Right of Return[1], with implications for a certain third country[2] that not so coincidentally shares an excrutiatingly vexed history with both the islands' illegal occupiers up until the current date.
Of course, there are many in this crowd who at this point will say: "The fuck it does -- no one cares about the Chagossians and their long-standing claims for reparations for what the US and UK have done to them along with this pesky thing some people refer to as moral injury. And of course the ICJ doesn't matter anyway."
But I say: These things very much do matter. And it is the very fact that the US and UK thought (until recently with near certainty) that they could keep presenting a middle finger to these people and their claims, not to mention their simple dignity as human beings for so long without any repercussions is precisely why it matters, both politically and in legal terms.
And of course those who say the ICJ doesn't matter -- or that Right of Return doesn't matter -- don't matter anyway.
I recommend the Behind the Bastards series "How the British Empire and U.S. DoD Murdered an Island Paradise" about the Chagos islands for deeper context.
Locals matter only when it's convenient. Note that this agreement wasn't negotiated with people who lived on Chagos islands, but with government that claims the territory.
See also "How the British Empire and U.S. Department of Defense Murdered an Island Paradise" ... "the story of the Chagos Islands, a paradise founded by former slaves that was wiped out by the British empire so they could lease it to the U.S. as an air base" [1]
France ceded Mauritius and its outlying islands to the UK. When the UK granted Mauritius independence, it held back the Chagos Islands and forcibly deported all their inhabitants, leading to the status quo until today.
I absolutely agree. Lammy’s justification about “closing a vector for illegal immigration” just shows how spineless they all are (especially the new lot Kier & Co.). No creativity, no defense of national interests. Just fear of negative tabloid headlines.
100% it makes me emotional when I see the rate of decline. The calibre of this goverment is shocking, we deserve better than TwoTierKeir and Lammy.
Personally I am suspicious about why Starmer tried to pushed this through when no one was looking. Whats behind it? Maybe China promising a good deal on carbon capture technology.
As long as the US and the UK is allowed to operate their
military bases and operations without any protest or
quibble for the next 100 years and probably more.
Have some spare change instead of too much sovereignty.
And remember the military bases are US and UK soil
and whatever goes on there can keep going on whatever
laws may or may not be passed.
Just like how the US maintains a military base,
camp (now not very busy at the moment) concentration
camp in the communist country of Cuba.
Very sad for the United Kingdom, I think. Back in 1982 Queen Elizabeth II refused to give up the Falklands at gunpoint; in 2024 King Charles III gives up the British Indian Ocean Territory without even a shot being fired.
Queen Elizabeth II had no involvement in the decision to defend the Falklands, other than perhaps some private counsel with the then Prime Minister, just as King Charles III will have had no involvement in this decision.
Why is it sad for the UK to no longer claim as their own and occupy a small piece of land that the ICJ ruled they didn't even lawfully have sovereignty over?
The inhabitants were planters and their workers (originally slaves imported in the 1700s); no-one is native to the islands.
And the poor folks who were expelled (and their descendants) were not even consulted this time around — this is purely a deal between the United Kingdom and Mauritius, whose only relationship with the islands is that they were both lumped together under the old colonial administration.
Related ongoing thread:
Ask HN: What happens to ".io" TLD after UK gives back the Chagos Islands? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41729526 - Oct 2024 (153 comments)
I'm a citizen of the Republic of Mauritius and, when this news was announced today, there was a general sense of relief.
Mauritius has been fighting for its sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago (with Diego Garcia being the largest island) for 56 years.
Today, the Chagos Archipelago is part of Mauritius again and a treaty will (hopefully) soon be signed between the UK and Mauritius.
From there, Mauritius will sign a lease agreement of 99 years with the USA so that the military base there can continue to operate.
Of course, there will surely be a lot of money involved but we don't have the details yet.
What exactly is the Mauritian connection to the Chagos Archipelago?
Is it just because a lot of Chagossians went to Mauritius after getting kicked out? Obviously Mauritius and Chagos were ruled by the same people previous (French, then British), but is there a deeper history there?
I ask this because the Chagos archipelago is like 1500 miles away from Mauritius - the Maldives, Seychelles, and even Sri Lanka and India are all closer than that. And to my untrained eye, the Chagos archipelago looks like an extension of whatever process created the Maldives.
There isn’t one, as you say it’s over 2000km between them, the only link is that when Britain was administrating them it did so as a single territory. This is not some reunification of a country separated by a colonial power.
5 replies →
>What exactly is the Mauritian connection to the Chagos Archipelago?
I can see where this line of questioning is going but what's the connection between Britain and Chagos or the US and Chagos for that matter?
13 replies →
https://www.icj-cij.org/case/169
I'm assuming if the were ruled as the same entity for a significant amount of time that there was a lot of movement between the two regions during that time with all that implies, intermarriage etc.
All of which would probably still mean there are lots of people still alive from the time the regions were separated that feel themselves to be nonetheless connected and unfairly kept apart.
3 replies →
I imagine for such a small island chain you'd need a "parent" country to provide services, so picking the one where most people when when they were exiled probably makes sense. May also be a language thing?
> From there, Mauritius will sign a lease agreement of 99 years with the USA so that the military base there can continue to operate.
Seems to be a lease with the UK (which then 'sub-leases' to the US?):
* https://www.reuters.com/world/britain-agrees-chagos-island-s...
Curious to know if there will be extension provisions: people think 99 years is a long time (which isn't wrong), but Hong Kong went back to China after that period of time.
Legally that makes the most sense as it leaves everything where it is. The whole place is a weird combination of US/UK culture and standards.
The BBC article refers to it as an initial period, so I'd assume it can be extended.
> There, the UK will ensure operation of the military base for "an initial period" of 99 years.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98ynejg4l5o
It's easier to move a single military base at the end of a lease than an entire country
52 replies →
Possibly. The treaty has not been signed yet.
Things will become clearer in the coming weeks.
[dead]
Yeah, but Mauritius isn't China. If the UK had reneged on the Hong Kong lease, there were economic and military options for China to potentially enforce it.
A lot can happen in 99 years, but even assuming a serious decline in US economic/military might I don't see a scenario where Mauritius could successfully enforce the lease on its own.
12 replies →
Congratulations! Would you be willing to go into more depth on why you feel relieved? You've spelled out the terms; I'm asking if you might connect the dots between those terms and your feelings about the whole thing.
Also, are you concerned that Diego Garcia might be a target in a war?
I’m sure the context is totally different. And yours is right as you are the citizen there.
But being a Hong Kong citizen, I have a totally different reaction to this news. (Projected to our own context.)
How does this affect fishing territory and economic zones for Mauritius?
> From there, Mauritius will sign a lease agreement of 99 years with the USA so that the military base there can continue to operate.
So basically nothing of essence will change, this is just a Panama-fication of those islands.
The US base on Diego Garcia is an exceptionally nasty bit of history: with the British murdering all the local islanders pet dogs - literally grabbing them from the arms of screaming children and telling them they were next - as part of an intimidation campaign to force them off the island so the US could have it’s intelligence outpost.
For those curious about this history, you can watch John Pilger’s 2004 documentary Stealing a Nation for free on his website: https://johnpilger.com/stealing-a-nation/
For those who prefer to read, historian Mark Curtis has published online an excerpt regarding Chagos from his 2003 book Web of Deceit: https://www.markcurtis.info/2007/02/12/the-depopulation-of-t...
> African nations began to speak with one voice on the issue, pushing the UK hard on the issue of decolonialisation.
I wish the journalists had a little more sophistication on this. African nations began to push the UK on this because China and Russia understand that Diego Garcia is a critical port, and made investment + aid/ bribery + weapons (China / Russia respectively) conditional on forcing the issue.
In other words: The African nations have no agency or legitimate motivations of their own, and are just doing what China and Russia bully them to do. Apparently they don't even appreciate the significance of the military base on those islands. It is left for the adults in the room (Russia and China) to think and operate on such a level.
Of course no one here is naive, and we all know already that external operators have their influence, and (though the commenter provides no evidence) it's certainly possible, likely even, that such influence came into play here to some degree.
Nonetheless, the commenter's phrasing and implicit attitude toward these nations seems weirdly patronizing and, well, colonial.
If the characterization is inaccurate, then say so. If not, this is just name calling and mind reading.
1 reply →
For context the entire continent of Africa has roughly the same GDP as the UK.
3 replies →
Where is some evidence of this version of the story?
I'd like to see your sources on this.
I expect it's a bit simpler than that: anti-colonial policies resonate deeply with African voters, and are very uncontroversial.
African voters, to the extent that they have any vote at all [1], have vastly more important things to care about than a tiny island in the Indian ocean. I would in fact bet a lot of money that vastly fewer than 1% of African voters, in any country, know about the Chagos Islands at all.
[1] Mostly, not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_Africa#/media/Fil...
8 replies →
I believe we will keep the port there with the US?
Ah yes, because the UK has no agency and clearly hasn't shown itself to be very okay at standing up against Russia for example.
Huh? I had the impression that the entire international community (sans UK, US & Israel) has been pushing for this for years, and quite insistently since the 2021 ITLOS judgement. Also, the US will keep it's base as part of the settlement.
It would be naive to believe that the Chinese will not build a competing naval base there, and encroach upon Mauritius's sovereignty over time.
4 replies →
> The remaining British overseas territories are: Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antarctic Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands. There are also two sovereign base areas on Cyprus under British jurisdiction.
Good note at the end
And quite a few of those in shady financial dealings. Happily hiding and laundering money for various kleptocrats. It has been noted that, just as the Roman Empire didn't really disappear - it became a church, the British Empire didn't really disappear - it became a bank.
The British government likes to make various noises about cleaning this up, but there are too many businesses in the City of London making money off the system for there to be much chance of that happening.
> the Roman Empire didn't really disappear - it became a church, the British Empire didn't really disappear - it became a bank.
Great quip!
There will always be some crime in any financial centre, but I think there's limited evidence that there's proportionally more financial crime going on in London than e.g. NYC or Frankfurt.
2 replies →
The British Indian Ocean Territory is probably better known in the tech world for its top-level domain: .io.
Ok now THAT is interesting. I always thought it was a tech-focused domain, for input/output. :)
The two-letter ones are all countries/regions/territories. See also .su for a blast (thankfully not literal) from the past https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.su
Which is owned by a hedge fund, and thankfully not part of this deal (so it's not at risk!)
TLD "owners" own TLDs in much the same way that we own domains, and it's very possible that ICANN phases out the .io domain when the British Indian Ocean Territory ceases to exist. From what we gathered in the other thread it somewhat depends on what ISO decides to do with its codes.
At a minimum I expect that control over the .io domain will go to Mauritius and they'll be able to reassign it as desired (since they never contracted with the hedge fund). But the typical path for a code when its country goes defunct is to get phased out.
1 reply →
It being owned by a hedge fund doesn't change the fact that ICAAN policies will retire the ccTLD.
Whether they choose to NOT APPLY those policies is a different matter that, again, isn't changed by who owns it but instead by use.
What are some new countries we can create so we end up with a cool TLD?
There’s gotta be someone willing to fund this.
1 reply →
It might well be at risk.
Extensive discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41729526
TL;DR: ICANN policy forces deletion if CC disappears from the ISO list of countries, with one famous exception (.su); but Mauritius could cut a Tuvalu-style deal to maintain it.
I imagine whoever got the 99 year lease is feeling pretty pleased about it - that's basically forever as far as they can tell.
On the other hand, I bet the UK in 1997 would have hoped for a longer lease on Hong Kong.
Hong Kong island was ceded to the British in perpetuity. The 99 years lease of the New Territories (not Hong Kong, technically) was an additional unequal treaty that the Qing were forced into on top of it, after they also had to give up Kowloon. The British could have asked for 150 years too, who'd have stopped them?
Now the same happens to Britain in reverse. There is no benefit for any state to give up territory for nothing in return, why would they be "pretty pleased" about it? Also not only is Britain ceding its territory but they're actually paying rent to keep a base on what was previously their own land! It almost feels like China is involved in this because the number doesn't sound like something Mauritius would come up with on their own. See other 99 year leases the CCP is involved in, they're obsessed with this number:
https://ceylontoday.lk/2023/08/31/over-1200-acres-of-sri-lan...
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/australia-says-no...
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/05/25/asia-pacific/ch...
> It almost feels like China is involved in this because the number doesn't sound like something Mauritius would come up with on their own. See other 99 year leases the CCP is involved in, they're obsessed with this number
Err 99 leases are common in lots of places. 99 years is a bit more than a lifetime so not many people care much about what happens afterwards. And it is a lot shorter than in perpetuity which would look bad for whoever is granting it.
4 replies →
The Chagos Islands were't lawfully "their own land" according to an International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling from 2019, which probably had something to do with this change.
The article posts one reason why they'd give it up: they feel the ongoing issue of the Chagos Islands is hurting their ability to get diplomatic support in other international matters that are far more important to them.
Sea level rise may mean that a 99 year lease is longer than the island will be habitable.
At what point does sea level rise remove a countries EEZ claim.
Seems that it's a real issue -- https://www.reuters.com/investigations/sinking-tuvalu-fights...
Also decreased oil consumption as a result of renewable energy sources (decreasing the Middle East's importance) and climate change opening up northern shipping routes (decreasing the SE Asia - Suez Canal importance).
In 99 years, being able to exert influence in the region will likely be less important to global trade.
Erm, even if the coast is flooded, Mauritius is a big island with plenty of land well above sea level.
1 reply →
I’ll take that bet.
2 replies →
Even if that lease was permanent I doubt the PRC would just let it be. The time limit just meant they could just wait instead of having to negotiate or invade.
I've seen few mentions that PRC actually expected UK to extend the lease, and was surprised when UK didn't...
Probably not. In 1997 they were happy to court the $$ associated with opening up this huge new market of 1b+ "middle class" consumers.
Id argue they still aren't sufficiently butthurt about it. The UK has sufficient grounds to reclaim HK since china has very much failed to uphold its agreement to keep hong kong democratic for at least 50 years. I guess that's why the CPC goes on gaslighting rants about "whole process democracy" like Jesus CPC. You just had to wait 20 years, what the hell is the rush?
One of the reasons UK didn't contest it in 1997 was that it couldn't. UK "owned" Hong Kong island, which is a tiny bit of territory. Most of what is called Hong Kong was actually leased from China for a definite term, and the lease was coming to an end, fair and square. Hong Kong island was handed over as part of the package.
Hong Kong island is, I would imagine, in no way sustainable as a standalone territory, if China were to be hostile.
1 reply →
Even if they were legally entitled to reclaim it under law, I don't see the British re-invading China at this point.
I think China is increasingly driven by the ego of Xi Jinping and not the internal machinations of party politics.
15 replies →
Based on the UKs failure to retake HK despite the broken agreement, how long do you think that base will be there?
They could take it back whenever they wanted and we’d do nothing.
1 reply →
In what universe does the UK have grounds to have anything to do with governing a region 6000 miles away from home that it seized during the Opium War?
I would love for China to have democracy, but Great Britain really doesn't have any moral high ground on the issue nor any business having anything to do with the government there.
If you think they aren't sufficiently butthurt about it, I'd counter that by saying "what can they realistically do about it?" The answer is "absolutely nothing." You want them to invade or something?
They can write a nastygram or something but any of the promises involved with the transfer really mean nothing. An analogy would be asking the next owner of your car to not play any Britney Spears on the radio. Good luck enforcing that.
7 replies →
[dead]
>china has very much failed to uphold its agreement to keep hong kong democratic
That would be a curious failure indeed given that Hong Kong wasn't democratic under the British to begin with. It was a crown colony ruled by an appointed governor. The Brits of course never had any legitimate claim to an island they took after a war whose objective was to force opium into China. If they still have dreams of empire I'm sure China would be delighted to see them try though and see how it goes this time.
Some countries have constitutions that forbid giving up any parts of its territory, but apparently our government can hand over sovereignty without even a vote in parliament
The UN General Assembly and various UN courts have ruled that the UK had no sovereignty over the Chagos Islands in the first place.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-55848126
The UN General Assembly is little more than an opinion poll, legally speaking.
Irrelevant.
2 replies →
The UN is relevant how? Anyway, UK did the right thing, though. Now get rid of that US hegemony-supporting base.
1 reply →
In theory the BIOT was under the personal control of the King, and in theory he could do what he wanted with it.
I'm assuming all this is contingent on a treaty vote in Parliament? I'm not familiar with how it works in the UK
In the UK the executive (ie "the government") makes and ratifies treaties, using delegated authority [1] from the monarch.
There is no general rule that parliament has to ratify, or even scrutinise, a treaty. The main exceptions are if the treaty requires domestic legislation to be passed by parliament, or if the treaty has significant constitutionap implications. Given our un-codified constitution here in the UK, I would imagine the latter constaint comes with some wriggle-room.
This [2] briefing by the House of Commons Library lays it all out.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_in_the_Unite...
[2] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...
Yes, of course Parliament will need to vote on this, but the Prime Minister of the UK has approved it and unlike in the US., in the UK votes are predominantly along party lines so it will pass.
13 replies →
It’s not part of the UK. It’s an overseas territory owned by the crown.
Without going into the sentiment of this, I suppose Chaos Islands are not part of the United Kingdom but rather an overseas territory, so more like "property", to put it bluntly. I guess the government can just give away a building it owns, and this is more analogous than giving away "territory". And there is no current indigenous population there either.
But yeah, Jersey is also an overseas territory, can the government just give that away?
Jersey is a Crown Dependency, not an Overseas Territory. They share a King and the UK is responsible for their defense, but domestically Crown Dependencies are more independent of Parliament than your average British overseas territory.
8 replies →
The United Kingdom has parliamentary supremacy with little to no checks or balances, so if the parliament wants to give away something, there is nothing that can really stop them.
3 replies →
I guess this means the sun will now set on the British empire. It’s pretty far west from the Pitcairn Islands to Akrotiri and Dhekelia without the Indian Ocean territory in between.
This is exactly what I thought when I read this. https://what-if.xkcd.com/48/ makes no mention of the islands but I feel like it might cause a sunset now?
Interestingly this includes the military base of Diego Garcia which is strategically important. I imagine the US will pay Mauritius a bucket load of money for continued use.
It seems the US are continuing to pay the UK and the UK is buying off Mauritius.
I imagine ALL of this was hinging on some long term agreement where the US gets to keep Diego Garcia.
Hopefully I'm not too late - the Guardian's coverage included this important bit:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/03/britain-to-ret...
An attempt to halt the negotiations, on the basis that the Chagossians were not consulted or involved, failed.
Chagossian Voices, a community organisation for Chagossians based in the UK and in several other countries, said of Thursday’s announcement: “Chagossian Voices deplore the exclusion of the Chagossian community from the negotiations which have produced this statement of intent concerning the sovereignty of our homeland. Chagossians have learned this outcome from the media and remain powerless and voiceless in determining our own future and the future of our homeland.
“The views of Chagossians, the Indigenous inhabitants of the islands, have been consistently and deliberately ignored and we demand full inclusion in the drafting of the treaty.”
[later in the article:]
Clive Baldwin, senior legal adviser at HRW, said: “The agreement says it will address the wrongs against the Chagossians of the past but it looks like it will continue the crimes long into the future.
“It does not guarantee that the Chagossians will return to their homeland, appears to explicitly ban them from the largest island, Diego Garcia, for another century, and does not mention the reparations they are all owed to rebuild their future. The forthcoming treaty needs to address their rights, and there should be meaningful consultations with the Chagossians, otherwise the UK, US and now Mauritius will be responsible for a still-ongoing colonial crime.”
bad deal for Mauritius. they didn’t gain any sovereignty, they lost some. why? because now the foreign military base is officially on Maritius soil. so US now has a base in Mauritius just like they have in Japan and other places and those places can’t do anything about it
The article makes it sound like the UK is attempting to gain African influence by returning Chagos while keeping the military bases. Perhaps it's also cheaper to only have the bases since that's the main reason the UK has kept control?
France needs to give back sovereignty of so many islands around Madagascar. It's galling that they still act like a colonial state.
Like Mayotte?
The population there is the single biggest electorate for the far right. Yes, that's right; they are black Muslims yet vote for Le Pen's party around 60%.
That's because the very last thing they want is to rejoin the Comoros and be ruled by their former slavers again; France abolished slavery when it took control of Mayotte, which never was a real independent nation but an island constantly taken over by various Muslim warlords or pirates.
The uninhabited ones? Aside from politicians, does anyone care really?
Don't you mean 'Gaulling'
Mauritius was a sponsor to the Treaty of Pelindaba/African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty. The US's stockpile on Diego Garcia likely violates this.
What does this means in terms of global politics and US having a base there?
I also assume .io no longer being controlled by UK? ( Which is somewhat worrying )
> What does this means in terms of global politics and US having a base there?
Absolutely nothing. The US still has a base on the island of Cuba [0], they aren’t giving up Diego Garcia.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base
One of the more surreal bits of the situation around Guantanamo bay is that the US was very careful to pay the lease amount(nowdays a trivial $4000 dollers) and Cuba was very careful about not cashing the payments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban%E2%80%93American_Treaty_...
Another weird thing was the subject of Cuban workers at the outpost. When relations soured between the countries Cuba wanted to isolate the base completely, And I have no clue about internal Cuban politics, but that stance was then lightened to "no new workers could be hired, but existing ones could stay employed" so for 59 years there was a steadily dwindling number of commuters from Guantanimo city to the base until the last one retired in 2012.
Absolutely nothing.
Not true at all, as regards the political aspects. There's also the people living there, or who rather had been until they were forcibly deported[0] long so long ago. And their situation also has very considerable legal and political significance. In regard to which there's also been an ICJ case with several very sharply-worded rulings starting 2019. It is also quite significant in regard to the global movement in favor of Right of Return[1], with implications for a certain third country[2] that not so coincidentally shares an excrutiatingly vexed history with both the islands' illegal occupiers up until the current date.
Of course, there are many in this crowd who at this point will say: "The fuck it does -- no one cares about the Chagossians and their long-standing claims for reparations for what the US and UK have done to them along with this pesky thing some people refer to as moral injury. And of course the ICJ doesn't matter anyway."
But I say: These things very much do matter. And it is the very fact that the US and UK thought (until recently with near certainty) that they could keep presenting a middle finger to these people and their claims, not to mention their simple dignity as human beings for so long without any repercussions is precisely why it matters, both politically and in legal terms.
And of course those who say the ICJ doesn't matter -- or that Right of Return doesn't matter -- don't matter anyway.
[0] - https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/02/15/thats-when-nightmare-s...
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return
[2] - https://www.thenationalnews.com/mena/palestine-israel/2024/0...
> US still has a base on the island of Cuba
Ah, you mean the illegal torture prison against which the Cuban government has been protesting since 1959.
3 replies →
Worth reading Kevin Murphy’s piece here:
https://domainincite.com/30395-future-of-io-domains-uncertai...
He’s a long time commentator on the domain industry and very inciteful. But also quite insightful.
Did they agree who will get the the .io ccTLD? Or is that up to ICANN?
I have no answers - just a note there's another discussion regarding .io here if anyone wants more readin'
Ask HN: What happens to ".io" TLD after UK gives back the Chagos Islands? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41729526
> There, the UK will ensure operation of the military base for "an initial period" of 99 years.
Taking bets on how much surface area of this atoll will still be above water in 2123.
https://freakonomics.com/podcast/top-level-domains/ is a podcast that talks about the economics of TLDs like ".io".
Took them long enough. Glad to see the UK relinquish ownership of these islands
I recommend the Behind the Bastards series "How the British Empire and U.S. DoD Murdered an Island Paradise" about the Chagos islands for deeper context.
diego garcia remains, so it really is a matter of semantics.
not that military bases like these are always great with the host nations (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf-eHVa-2zE).
any potential windfall would be nice for Mauritius, but obviously does not remedy for the conflict.
I had never heard of it until now, but it looks similar to parts of the Marshall Islands in that there are very narrow strips of land.
Here in Argentina these news have been met with great enthusiasm.
So just as considerate of the chagossians as the population of the Falklands then?
Locals matter only when it's convenient. Note that this agreement wasn't negotiated with people who lived on Chagos islands, but with government that claims the territory.
See also "How the British Empire and U.S. Department of Defense Murdered an Island Paradise" ... "the story of the Chagos Islands, a paradise founded by former slaves that was wiped out by the British empire so they could lease it to the U.S. as an air base" [1]
[1] https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236...
I'm unaware of the details but wasn't the island chain sold to the British?
France ceded Mauritius and its outlying islands to the UK. When the UK granted Mauritius independence, it held back the Chagos Islands and forcibly deported all their inhabitants, leading to the status quo until today.
Pathetic weak UK government
I absolutely agree. Lammy’s justification about “closing a vector for illegal immigration” just shows how spineless they all are (especially the new lot Kier & Co.). No creativity, no defense of national interests. Just fear of negative tabloid headlines.
100% it makes me emotional when I see the rate of decline. The calibre of this goverment is shocking, we deserve better than TwoTierKeir and Lammy.
Personally I am suspicious about why Starmer tried to pushed this through when no one was looking. Whats behind it? Maybe China promising a good deal on carbon capture technology.
Geography Now! Mauritius:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrOwkNEHIlk
Yeah...
As long as the US and the UK is allowed to operate their military bases and operations without any protest or quibble for the next 100 years and probably more. Have some spare change instead of too much sovereignty.
And remember the military bases are US and UK soil and whatever goes on there can keep going on whatever laws may or may not be passed.
Just like how the US maintains a military base, camp (now not very busy at the moment) concentration camp in the communist country of Cuba.
[dead]
This. The US hegemon is everywhere it shouldn't be. And no one stands up. Well, we'll see what happens after UA.
After Ukraine a lot more countries, especially in there neighbourhood of Russia will ask Americans for their military bases.
Very sad for the United Kingdom, I think. Back in 1982 Queen Elizabeth II refused to give up the Falklands at gunpoint; in 2024 King Charles III gives up the British Indian Ocean Territory without even a shot being fired.
Queen Elizabeth II had no involvement in the decision to defend the Falklands, other than perhaps some private counsel with the then Prime Minister, just as King Charles III will have had no involvement in this decision.
Officially sure. Practically? Not a chance.
Why is it sad for the UK to no longer claim as their own and occupy a small piece of land that the ICJ ruled they didn't even lawfully have sovereignty over?
The difference is that Falklanders at multiple times established they want to be British, more than the government in London wanted them.
Whereas Chagos Islands inhabitants were violently expulsed and the only people on site are occupation forces.
The inhabitants were planters and their workers (originally slaves imported in the 1700s); no-one is native to the islands.
And the poor folks who were expelled (and their descendants) were not even consulted this time around — this is purely a deal between the United Kingdom and Mauritius, whose only relationship with the islands is that they were both lumped together under the old colonial administration.