Comment by throw0101d
7 months ago
> 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?
The lease expires in 2123. The militarily strategic landscape then is pretty much unknowable.
To a 1925 (99 years ago) military force, the Diego Garcia airfield would have had zero importance.
39 replies →
I am sure that if at the end of 99 years the US or the UK still really really want to retain them, they will find a way (another lease, or by force).
Mauritius is not China. Not that I am suggesting for this to happen, but what are they going to do if the UK just decides not to leave after 99 years?
2 replies →
There are multiple islands and archipelagos in the region.
Close to Africa/ME: Maldives, Seychelles, Comoros, Mayotte
Close to SE Asia: Cocos and Christmas Island
Diego Garcia just happened to be forcibly depopulated by the British, so was a convenient choice.
7 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.
> 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.
Presently, the UK lacks an entrenched written constitution. Hence, any court decision can be overturned by an ordinary Act of the UK Parliament, passed by a simple majority. If a court makes a ruling which the government of the day sufficiently dislikes, the court ruling will be overturned, assuming the government has the numbers to get the legislation through the House of Commons and House of Lords.
But, in 99 years time, who knows. Maybe by then, the UK will have a written constitution. Maybe by then, the UK won't even exist anymore. Maybe by the time the lease expires, it will actually be between Mauritius and the English Republic.
2 replies →
until the government decides that only evidence they like can be presented to the court like the last administration did with their Rwanda plan for migrants.
The UK government never wanted to keep Hong Kong. (It may have wanted to pantomime trying to keep it to placate some voters).
While the UK did have a long history of legal continuity, it's made a lot of dramatic changes in recent years - the switch to the Supreme Court which has then made some legally bizarre decisions, the complete demolition of the House of Lords over a pretty short period, the efforts to entrench human rights legislation which have simply no precedent in UK constitutional history at all...
2 replies →
as always UK courts favour their country/people.
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.
Well someone more powerful would not care about the lease agreements anyway so if the U.S can’t fight back the lease agreement won’t help them anyway. See Russia-Ukcraine and the agreements that were signed. They are not worth their paper