Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 296 posts

Re: UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius

#121

Post by somat »

quickthrowman wrote: post #10
ksec wrote: post #4

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.

Re: UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius

#123

Post by klelatti »

trompetenaccoun wrote: post #106
rich_sasha wrote: post #41

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 fo…

> 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.

Re: UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius

#124

Post by skissane »

simonh wrote: post #99
scottLobster wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius

#125

Post by aguaviva »

haberman wrote: post #118
aguaviva wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

If the characterization is inaccurate, then say so. If not, this is just name calling and mind reading.

There's no need, because it's essentially what I said already.

Re: UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius

#126

Post by aguaviva »

bpodgursky wrote: post #30
toyg wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

But this is a red herring. Their leaders know all about the issue (which infinitely broader than the matter of those specific islands of course; the supposition that it's just about "a tiny island" being a straw man in itself), of course; and have made their position very clear:

  The African Union on Thursday hailed the “historic political agreement” between the UK and Mauritius regarding the sovereignty of the Chagos Islands.

  “This significant milestone marks a major victory for the cause of Decolonialization, International Law, and the rightful self-determination of the people of Mauritius, bringing to an end to decades of dispute,” African Union Chairman Moussa Faki Mahamat stated in a message posted on X (formerly Twitter).

Re: UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius

#127

Post by callamdelaney »

BobAliceInATree wrote: post #110
BurningFrog wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

in 99 years, most of the island probably will be underwater due to climate change.

And in 299 years the climate may have changed again, as it is wont to do (and has always done).

Re: UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius

#128

Post by [deleted] »

scottLobster wrote: post #74
throw0101d wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 afte…

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.

[deleted]

Re: UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius

#129

Post by skeledrew »

BurningFrog wrote: post #114
BobAliceInATree wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in 99 years, most of the island probably will be underwater due to climate change.

The island is certainly in the risk zone, but I think that is also unknowable. My guess is that by carbon sequestering and/or SO2 injection in the stratosphere, the climate change will be controllable within a few decades.

It's very likely that we're already beyond some of the tipping points, and others are very close[0]. We're basically going into the mitigation phase now by my understanding.

[0] https://www.space.com/climate-tipping-points-closer-than-rea...

Re: UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius

#130

Post by etothepii »

SllX wrote: post #46
rich_sasha wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 govern…

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.

Do you have a source for this? I am not aware of any practically significant way in which the crown dependencies are different from the OTs. AMA 7.5 year resident of Bermuda.
Post reply on HN