Comment by trompetenaccoun
7 months ago
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.
> In England during the sixteenth century it was common practice to make leases for a term of three lives or a period of 99 years. It is presumed to be upon the theory that the lease should last thru three generations as it has been common practice to accept thirty-three years as the span of a single generation.
https://archive.org/details/longtermlandlea00mcmigoog/page/n...
So, 99 years is basically 3 Jesuses? Or 3J?
The forced dispossession of the islanders of their home was a crime against humanity by the UK in the first place. This is righting an abysmal wrong
But this doesn't quite right, since as far I understand, the Islanders aren't necessarily Mauritians.
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.