20 ms·
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 so
by avinash 2y ago
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.
- paganel 2y ago> 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.
- KolenCh 2y agoI’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.)
- throw0101d 2y ago> 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-sovereignty-deal-with-mauritius-2024-10-03/ 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.
- baybal2 2y ago[dead]
- mcintyre1994 2y agoThe BBC article refers to it as an initial period, so I'd assume it can be extended. > There, the UK will ensure operation of the military base for "an initial period" of 99 years. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98ynejg4l5o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98ynejg4l5o
- avinash 2y agoPossibly. The treaty has not been signed yet. Things will become clearer in the coming weeks.
- qingcharles 2y agoLegally that makes the most sense as it leaves everything where it is. The whole place is a weird combination of US/UK culture and standards.
- connicpu 2y agoIt's easier to move a single military base at the end of a lease than an entire country
- mmooss 2y agoAFAIK, 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?
- ethbr1 2y agoThere 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.
- reaperducer 2y agoClose 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.
- mmooss 2y agoI mean, what current option is equivalent to Diego Garcia? Are any of those options realistic right now?
- scottLobster 2y agoYeah, 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.
- ta1243 2y agoMauritius 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.
- thefounder 2y agoWell 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
- simonh 2y agoIf 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.
- skissane 2y ago> 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.
- hinkley 2y agoHow does this affect fishing territory and economic zones for Mauritius?
- mmooss 2y agoCongratulations! 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?
- IncreasePosts 2y agoWhat 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.
- s_dev 2y ago>What exactly is the Mauritian connection to the Chagos Archipelago? I can see where this line of questioning is going but what's the connection between Britain and Chagos or the US and Chagos for that matter?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- InsomniacL 2y ago215 years of British sovereignty? The United States of America has had sovereignty of itself for 248 years, should the USA give up it's sovereignty in North America or do you draw the line between somewhere between 215 and 248? At what point do you say, it is what it is?
- berdario 2y agoThe obvious difference, is that you're comparing sovereignty over a nation/state's mainland, vs sovereignty over a separate colony, thousands of km away from the mainland (and even used only for military purposes, apparently)
- InsomniacL 2y agoHawaii then, 3,200 km away from the US mainland, home to one of the largest US navel bases and only part of the US for the last 126 years when they annexed it?