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

91–100 of 296 posts

Re: UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius

#91

Post by ta1243 »

ossobuco wrote: post #66
quickthrowman wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

> US still has a base on the island of Cuba Ah, you mean the illegal torture prison against which the Cuban government has been protesting since 1959.

Sure. It's still there though, 65 years later.

The US will go where it pleases and do what it wants, just like the great European empires of the 17th through 19th centuries. Sure it's Amazon and Google rather than an East India Company, but it's the same themes.

Re: UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius

#92

Post by thefounder »

ta1243 wrote: post #85
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.

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

Re: UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius

#93

Post by 10xalphadev »

jplrssn wrote: post #21
matthewmorgan wrote: post #9

Some countries have constitutions that forbid giving up any parts of its territory, but apparently our government can hand over sovereignty without even a vote in parliament

The UN General Assembly and various UN courts have ruled that the UK had no sovereignty over the Chagos Islands in the first place. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-55848126

The UN is relevant how? Anyway, UK did the right thing, though. Now get rid of that US hegemony-supporting base.

Re: UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius

#94

Post by mmooss »

ethbr1 wrote: post #75
mmooss wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.

I mean, what current option is equivalent to Diego Garcia? Are any of those options realistic right now?

Re: UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius

#95

Post by 10xalphadev »

ThinkBeat wrote: post #19

Yeah... As long as the US and the UK is allowed to operate their military bases and operations without any protest or quibble for the next 100 years and probably more. Have some spare change instead of too much sovereignty. And remember the military bases are US and UK soil and whatever goes on there can keep going on whatever laws may or may not be passed. Just like how the US maintains a military base, camp (now no…

This. The US hegemon is everywhere it shouldn't be. And no one stands up. Well, we'll see what happens after UA.

Re: UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius

#96

Post by MaxHoppersGhost »

mppm wrote: post #27
gottorf wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be naive to believe that the Chinese will not build a competing naval base there, and encroach upon Mauritius's sovereignty over time.

Apart from this being pure speculation, where exactly would they build it? The archipelago has a tiny land area and the only atoll suitable for building a base is kinda already taken... Also, the primary strategic importance of Diego Garcia is to support US operations in the Middle East, where China has never interfered to any significant extent.

You could say the same about the South China Sea before the Chinese started building islands out there.

Re: UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius

#97

Post by cherryteastain »

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-... .

The Parliament being sovereign, it can pass an act about anything. It could certainly pass an act forbidding the government from ceding territory to a foreign power. However, since the current government holds a majority in parliament, in practice it won't happen.

Re: UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius

#98

Post by IncreasePosts »

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 are all closer than that. And to my untrained eye, the Chagos archipelago looks like an extension of whatever process created the Maldives.

Re: UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius

#99

Post by simonh »

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.

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.

Re: UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius

#100

Post by BurningFrog »

mmooss wrote: post #67
connicpu wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post reply on HN