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

151–160 of 296 posts

Re: UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius

#151

Post by aguaviva »

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

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...

Re: UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius

#152

Post by returningfory2 »

Spooky23 wrote: post #131
atvrager wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can I visit the world you're in, where votes in US Congress aren't predominantly along party lines?

The US system is far more dysfunctional — we have the Senate, which ensures that there isn’t an opportunity to conduct a vote along any line! The real lever of power in congress is the parliamentary process in the Senate.

I’m not so sure. A system in which a party that wins only 34% of the vote is given a near supermajority in the legislature and control of the executive seems pretty dysfunctional to me.

Re: UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius

#153

Post by throwuk3 »

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.

as always UK courts favour their country/people.

Re: UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius

#154

Post by neom »

IncreasePosts wrote: post #98
avinash wrote: post #17

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…

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…

https://www.icj-cij.org/case/169

Re: UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius

#155

Post by dragonwriter »

andyjohnson0 wrote: post #87
Maxatar wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Yes, of course Parliament will need to vote on this Not the case. The executive makes treaties. Parliament can scrutinise them but has no general ratification or veto role. See https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-... .

It has a veto role in the text you cite (I mean, its described as an infinitely renewable 21-day delay, but that's functionally a veto, especially since the government is subordinate to and can be dismissed by Parliament during the delay, and replaced by a more cooperative government; treating the UK as if it had coequal executive, legislative, and judicial branches like the US is an error; in the UK, Parliament is supreme and the executive and judicial powers are subordinate to and contingent on its support. The government’s power usually isn’t opposed by Parliament not because the government is equal or more powerful, or has true independent powers that the Parliament can't check, but the reverse—“the government” is established from the leadership of the Parliamentary majority, and they are absolutely dependent on continued support from Parliament, so they don't, outside of the most exceptional cases, do anything that doesn't have at least tacit support of the majority of Parliament in the first place, so there is nothing to have conflict overm)

Re: UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius

#156

Post by aguaviva »

sealeck wrote: post #144
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…

For context the entire continent of Africa has roughly the same GDP as the UK.

For even more context, GDP isn't everything.

Re: UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius

#157

Post by kmonsen »

rich_sasha wrote: post #63
throwawaymaths wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 Ch…

China threatened to cut off water. UK did not have any meaningful way of keeping HK without strong US support.

Re: UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius

#158

Post by kmonsen »

tialaramex wrote: post #111
Maxatar wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Indeed. The only practical constraints on parliament are the Laws of Nature, which unlike man's laws cannot be broken, and the will of the People, in defiance of which a Parliament necessarily would fall since the Parliament is constituted from those people. If Parliament tried to ban booze (as the US Federal Government once did) that's probably not going to go well, and maybe they would (like the US government) be f…

Parliament can for sure overrule the will of the people, and very often do.

They might get punished in the next election or they may not.

More precisely only the PM can call an election I believe.

Re: UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius

#159

Post by BurningFrog »

skeledrew wrote: post #150
BurningFrog wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm quite skeptical. If we lower the CO2 levels (carbon sequestering) and cool the planet by reflecting more sunlight (SO2 injection in the stratosphere), I'm sure these alleged tipping points will be tipped back again, given some time. It's good to be aware that doom sells, and the incentive to publish doom predictions for the money they make is very high. Of course, they can still be true... We'll see how it goes :…

I don't get the reason for skepticism, when this is coming from scientists who've been studying the field for many years, and have been making predictions that have been coming true. It's like an avalanche. After it starts you can't stop it or get all that snow back on the mountain; it has to get to level ground, melt (if it gets warm enough) and go through an entire cycle that takes time. So yes, things will likely…

Well, look at this section:

> Climate tipping points — the "points of no return" past which key components of Earth's climate will begin to irreversibly break down — could be triggered by much lower temperatures than scientists previously thought, with some tipping points potentially already reached. There are also many more potential tipping points than scientists previously identified, according to a new study.

I count to 3 maybes only there:

1. tipping points "could be triggered by much lower temperatures" 2. "some tipping points potentially already reached" 3. "according to a new study"

Number 1 and 2 says that this may possibly happen, not that it will!

Number 3 is the worst. Many - probably most - new studies with unexpected results turn out to be wrong, as the Replication Crisis has painfully taught us. They also get the most press, because "new study confirms what we thought" stories don't go viral.

> it's the ones that do all they can to downplay the consequences who make the money

That's absolutely not true in science or publishing. The most sensational results get the most attention and grants and ad dollars.

Re: UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius

#160

Post by ethbr1 »

reaperducer wrote: post #81
ethbr1 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Close to Africa/ME: Maldives, Seychelles, Comoros, Mayotte Close to SE Asia: Cocos and Christmas Island That's the whole point of Diego Garcia: It's not "close to" anywhere, and it's nearly in the middle of a bunch of places. That's what give it its strategic importance.

The Maldives are only ~400mi N of Diego Garcia.
Post reply on HN