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.
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.
Congratulations! Would you be willing to go into more depth on why you feel relieved? You've spelled out the terms; I'm asking if you might connect the dots between those terms and your feelings about the whole thing.
Also, are you concerned that Diego Garcia might be a target in a war?
The US base on Diego Garcia is an exceptionally nasty bit of history: with the British murdering all the local islanders pet dogs - literally grabbing them from the arms of screaming children and telling them they were next - as part of an intimidation campaign to force them off the island so the US could have it’s intelligence outpost.
For those curious about this history, you can watch John Pilger’s 2004 documentary Stealing a Nation for free on his website: https://johnpilger.com/stealing-a-nation/
> African nations began to speak with one voice on the issue, pushing the UK hard on the issue of decolonialisation.
I wish the journalists had a little more sophistication on this. African nations began to push the UK on this because China and Russia understand that Diego Garcia is a critical port, and made investment + aid/ bribery + weapons (China / Russia respectively) conditional on forcing the issue.
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 have their influence, and (though the commenter provides no evidence) it's certainly possible, likely even, that such influence came into play here to some degree.
Nonetheless, the commenter's phrasing and implicit attitude toward these nations seems weirdly patronizing and, well, colonial.
Huh? I had the impression that the entire international community (sans UK, US & Israel) has been pushing for this for years, and quite insistently since the 2021 ITLOS judgement. Also, the US will keep it's base as part of the settlement.
> The remaining British overseas territories are: Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antarctic Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands. There are also two sovereign base areas on Cyprus under British jurisdiction.
And quite a few of those in shady financial dealings. Happily hiding and laundering money for various kleptocrats. It has been noted that, just as the Roman Empire didn't really disappear - it became a church, the British Empire didn't really disappear - it became a bank.
The British government likes to make various noises about cleaning this up, but there are too many businesses in the City of London making money off the system for there to be much chance of that happening.
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:
Even if that lease was permanent I doubt the PRC would just let it be. The time limit just meant they could just wait instead of having to negotiate or invade.
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
I guess this means the sun will now set on the British empire. It’s pretty far west from the Pitcairn Islands to Akrotiri and Dhekelia without the Indian Ocean territory in between.
Interestingly this includes the military base of Diego Garcia which is strategically important. I imagine the US will pay Mauritius a bucket load of money for continued use.
An attempt to halt the negotiations, on the basis that the Chagossians were not consulted or involved, failed.
Chagossian Voices, a community organisation for Chagossians based in the UK and in several other countries, said of Thursday’s announcement: “Chagossian Voices deplore the exclusion of the Chagossian community from the negotiations which have produced this statement of intent concerning the sovereignty of our homeland. Chagossians have learned this outcome from the media and remain powerless and voiceless in determining our own future and the future of our homeland.
“The views of Chagossians, the Indigenous inhabitants of the islands, have been consistently and deliberately ignored and we demand full inclusion in the drafting of the treaty.”
[later in the article:]
Clive Baldwin, senior legal adviser at HRW, said: “The agreement says it will address the wrongs against the Chagossians of the past but it looks like it will continue the crimes long into the future.
“It does not guarantee that the Chagossians will return to their homeland, appears to explicitly ban them from the largest island, Diego Garcia, for another century, and does not mention the reparations they are all owed to rebuild their future. The forthcoming treaty needs to address their rights, and there should be meaningful consultations with the Chagossians, otherwise the UK, US and now Mauritius will be responsible for a still-ongoing colonial crime.”
bad deal for Mauritius. they didn’t gain any sovereignty, they lost some. why? because now the foreign military base is officially on Maritius soil. so US now has a base in Mauritius just like they have in Japan and other places and those places can’t do anything about it
The article makes it sound like the UK is attempting to gain African influence by returning Chagos while keeping the military bases. Perhaps it's also cheaper to only have the bases since that's the main reason the UK has kept control?
I recommend the Behind the Bastards series "How the British Empire and U.S. DoD Murdered an Island Paradise" about the Chagos islands for deeper context.
See also "How the British Empire and U.S. Department of Defense Murdered an Island Paradise" ... "the story of the Chagos Islands, a paradise founded by former slaves that was wiped out by the British empire so they could lease it to the U.S. as an air base" [1]
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 not very busy at the moment) concentration
camp in the communist country of Cuba.
Very sad for the United Kingdom, I think. Back in 1982 Queen Elizabeth II refused to give up the Falklands at gunpoint; in 2024 King Charles III gives up the British Indian Ocean Territory without even a shot being fired.
Related ongoing thread:
Ask HN: What happens to ".io" TLD after UK gives back the Chagos Islands? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41729526 - Oct 2024 (153 comments)
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 a lease agreement of 99 years with the USA so that the military base there can continue to operate.
Of course, there will surely be a lot of money involved but we don't have the details yet.
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.
> 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.
Congratulations! Would you be willing to go into more depth on why you feel relieved? You've spelled out the terms; I'm asking if you might connect the dots between those terms and your feelings about the whole thing.
Also, are you concerned that Diego Garcia might be a target in a war?
I’m sure the context is totally different. And yours is right as you are the citizen there.
But being a Hong Kong citizen, I have a totally different reaction to this news. (Projected to our own context.)
How does this affect fishing territory and economic zones for Mauritius?
> From there, Mauritius will sign a lease agreement of 99 years with the USA so that the military base there can continue to operate.
So basically nothing of essence will change, this is just a Panama-fication of those islands.
The US base on Diego Garcia is an exceptionally nasty bit of history: with the British murdering all the local islanders pet dogs - literally grabbing them from the arms of screaming children and telling them they were next - as part of an intimidation campaign to force them off the island so the US could have it’s intelligence outpost.
For those curious about this history, you can watch John Pilger’s 2004 documentary Stealing a Nation for free on his website: https://johnpilger.com/stealing-a-nation/
For those who prefer to read, historian Mark Curtis has published online an excerpt regarding Chagos from his 2003 book Web of Deceit: https://www.markcurtis.info/2007/02/12/the-depopulation-of-t...
> African nations began to speak with one voice on the issue, pushing the UK hard on the issue of decolonialisation.
I wish the journalists had a little more sophistication on this. African nations began to push the UK on this because China and Russia understand that Diego Garcia is a critical port, and made investment + aid/ bribery + weapons (China / Russia respectively) conditional on forcing the issue.
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 have their influence, and (though the commenter provides no evidence) it's certainly possible, likely even, that such influence came into play here to some degree.
Nonetheless, the commenter's phrasing and implicit attitude toward these nations seems weirdly patronizing and, well, colonial.
Where is some evidence of this version of the story?
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.
I believe we will keep the port there with the US?
Ah yes, because the UK has no agency and clearly hasn't shown itself to be very okay at standing up against Russia for example.
Huh? I had the impression that the entire international community (sans UK, US & Israel) has been pushing for this for years, and quite insistently since the 2021 ITLOS judgement. Also, the US will keep it's base as part of the settlement.
> The remaining British overseas territories are: Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antarctic Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands. There are also two sovereign base areas on Cyprus under British jurisdiction.
Good note at the end
And quite a few of those in shady financial dealings. Happily hiding and laundering money for various kleptocrats. It has been noted that, just as the Roman Empire didn't really disappear - it became a church, the British Empire didn't really disappear - it became a bank.
The British government likes to make various noises about cleaning this up, but there are too many businesses in the City of London making money off the system for there to be much chance of that happening.
The British Indian Ocean Territory is probably better known in the tech world for its top-level domain: .io.
Ok now THAT is interesting. I always thought it was a tech-focused domain, for input/output. :)
Which is owned by a hedge fund, and thankfully not part of this deal (so it's not at risk!)
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 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...
Sea level rise may mean that a 99 year lease is longer than the island will be habitable.
Even if that lease was permanent I doubt the PRC would just let it be. The time limit just meant they could just wait instead of having to negotiate or invade.
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
I guess this means the sun will now set on the British empire. It’s pretty far west from the Pitcairn Islands to Akrotiri and Dhekelia without the Indian Ocean territory in between.
Interestingly this includes the military base of Diego Garcia which is strategically important. I imagine the US will pay Mauritius a bucket load of money for continued use.
Hopefully I'm not too late - the Guardian's coverage included this important bit:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/03/britain-to-ret...
An attempt to halt the negotiations, on the basis that the Chagossians were not consulted or involved, failed.
Chagossian Voices, a community organisation for Chagossians based in the UK and in several other countries, said of Thursday’s announcement: “Chagossian Voices deplore the exclusion of the Chagossian community from the negotiations which have produced this statement of intent concerning the sovereignty of our homeland. Chagossians have learned this outcome from the media and remain powerless and voiceless in determining our own future and the future of our homeland.
“The views of Chagossians, the Indigenous inhabitants of the islands, have been consistently and deliberately ignored and we demand full inclusion in the drafting of the treaty.”
[later in the article:]
Clive Baldwin, senior legal adviser at HRW, said: “The agreement says it will address the wrongs against the Chagossians of the past but it looks like it will continue the crimes long into the future.
“It does not guarantee that the Chagossians will return to their homeland, appears to explicitly ban them from the largest island, Diego Garcia, for another century, and does not mention the reparations they are all owed to rebuild their future. The forthcoming treaty needs to address their rights, and there should be meaningful consultations with the Chagossians, otherwise the UK, US and now Mauritius will be responsible for a still-ongoing colonial crime.”
bad deal for Mauritius. they didn’t gain any sovereignty, they lost some. why? because now the foreign military base is officially on Maritius soil. so US now has a base in Mauritius just like they have in Japan and other places and those places can’t do anything about it
The article makes it sound like the UK is attempting to gain African influence by returning Chagos while keeping the military bases. Perhaps it's also cheaper to only have the bases since that's the main reason the UK has kept control?
France needs to give back sovereignty of so many islands around Madagascar. It's galling that they still act like a colonial state.
Mauritius was a sponsor to the Treaty of Pelindaba/African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty. The US's stockpile on Diego Garcia likely violates this.
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 )
Worth reading Kevin Murphy’s piece here:
https://domainincite.com/30395-future-of-io-domains-uncertai...
He’s a long time commentator on the domain industry and very inciteful. But also quite insightful.
> There, the UK will ensure operation of the military base for "an initial period" of 99 years.
Taking bets on how much surface area of this atoll will still be above water in 2123.
Did they agree who will get the the .io ccTLD? Or is that up to ICANN?
https://freakonomics.com/podcast/top-level-domains/ is a podcast that talks about the economics of TLDs like ".io".
Took them long enough. Glad to see the UK relinquish ownership of these islands
diego garcia remains, so it really is a matter of semantics.
not that military bases like these are always great with the host nations (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf-eHVa-2zE).
any potential windfall would be nice for Mauritius, but obviously does not remedy for the conflict.
I recommend the Behind the Bastards series "How the British Empire and U.S. DoD Murdered an Island Paradise" about the Chagos islands for deeper context.
I had never heard of it until now, but it looks similar to parts of the Marshall Islands in that there are very narrow strips of land.
Here in Argentina these news have been met with great enthusiasm.
Pathetic weak UK government
See also "How the British Empire and U.S. Department of Defense Murdered an Island Paradise" ... "the story of the Chagos Islands, a paradise founded by former slaves that was wiped out by the British empire so they could lease it to the U.S. as an air base" [1]
[1] https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236...
Geography Now! Mauritius:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrOwkNEHIlk
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 not very busy at the moment) concentration camp in the communist country of Cuba.
Very sad for the United Kingdom, I think. Back in 1982 Queen Elizabeth II refused to give up the Falklands at gunpoint; in 2024 King Charles III gives up the British Indian Ocean Territory without even a shot being fired.