Comment by avinash
7 months ago
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.
Its more a sort of shakedown of a ex-colonial power
4 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?
215 years of British sovereignty?
The United States of America has had sovereignty of itself for 248 years, should the USA give up it's sovereignty in North America or do you draw the line between somewhere between 215 and 248?
At what point do you say, it is what it is?
6 replies →
I think this is missing the point of the original question, which is - why would a Mauritian feel "relief" at the return of a geographical territory which is extremely far from itself? The claims of the UK or the US are irrelevant to this reasoning.
Indeed, I would like to understand the answer to the above question better, since the only reason I can see is that Mauritius as a colony used to govern the islands, and that seems to have just been a convenience of the French that doesn't strongly justify any current claims of sovereignty. And since the UK were the ones to forcibly evict the Chagossians from the islands, it seems a double-injustice to "return" their land to another sovereign power which is equally at a distance from the islands themselves. Do the Chagossians support this claim by the Mauritian government?
3 replies →
If both sovereigns have equal claim to the land, keeping the status quo should be preferred.
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.
There is no people to be reunited here. Everyone was kicked out of Chagos to Mauritius so the UK military base could be build.
2 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
AFAIK, the US and UK value Diego Garcia because currently there aren't geographical alternatives for that base. Where else could they put it that would have the same benefits?
51 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.
If the treaty is UK law, they can take the case to UK courts. It's not guaranteed to work, it depends on the legal technicalities, but the government has no say in the findings of UK courts.
A lot can happen in 99 years, but as Hong Kong shows, the UK has a decent track record on long term legal continuity.
8 replies →
Mauritius isn't China today. In 99 years time it could be part of a China. Or a future country that is more powerful than China.
1 reply →
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.