8 ms·

UK to hand over Chagos back to Mauritius

65 points by ijuhoor 4y ago

captn3m0 4y ago
Article title: > UK agrees to negotiate Title on HN: > UK agrees to hand over title should be changed. Did Guardian update it at their end?
- iso1631 4y ago
  You can tell " UK to hand over Chagos back to Mauritius" isn't a Guardian title -- no spelling mistakes.
  - ijuhoor 4y ago
    My bad, I got excited. I can't edit the title though.
  - ukoki 4y ago
    As long as we're being pedantic: "hand over X back to" is mixing phrases -- are they handing it over or handing it back? It should be "hand X over to" or "hand X back to"
teleforce 4y ago
Apparently the Chagos Archipelago is much closer in distance to the Maldives than Mauritius. It would not be a surprise if they are claiming that area as well.
easytiger 4y ago
Back? They weren't populated until the British brought them there and were never a Mauritian property. Futhermore the only people who lived there were there as employees of the Chagos Agalega Company. From 1838 onwards. It's like getting a job on an oil rig and demanding you get to keep the rig. The fog of pseudo history written in terms of marxist terminology descends on our civilisation determined to rewrite reality https://www.uniset.ca/naty/2003EWHC2222.htm https://www.uniset.ca/naty/2003EWHC2222.htm
- sterlind 4y ago
  from your own link: > The abolition of slavery in 1833, and the entitlement of slaves to remain in the colony in which they were freed, meant that many freed slaves had continued to work the plantations. so slaves worked the plantations on the island before 1838. and as an aside, what do you mean by Marxist terminology? I didn't see "proletariat" or "bourgeoisie," nor workers seizing the means of production. it's sloppy and lazy to use "Marxism" as a catch-all bogeyman.
  - easytiger 4y ago
    > so slaves worked the plantations on the island before 1838. Yes, they were freed by the British and compensated in 1833. As they were post removal in 68. 1838 was the year they were working in Chagos on 2 year rolling contracts (as was common for non enslaved people in such businesses prior to 1833). > so slaves worked the plantations on the island before 1838. And they were brought there by the british & french mainly. The french & dutch inhabited it first, before any of these people's ancestors. > and as an aside, what do you mean by Marxist terminology? I didn't see "proletariat" or "bourgeoisie," nor workers seizing the means of production. it's sloppy and lazy to use "Marxism" as a catch-all bogeyman. Ignoring history by framing everything as a class/exploitation problem rather than looking at what really happened. It's very common to ignore history now and use feelings to assert because someone might have been exploited that overrides reality.
    - MrsPeaches 4y ago
      > And they were brought there by the british & french mainly. So were slaves in the Caribbean. Should they not have rights to the islands on which they have lived for generations? It’s pretty simple: They were taken from their homes as slaves. They were forced to work in plantations for generations. Slavery ended but they had no “home” to return to and called the island where they had settled home. Whether they were forcible taken there doesn’t suddenly mean it’s not their home. > because someone might have been exploited Can we just be super clear that we are talking about former slaves here. As much as might like to talk about “compensation” (source??) these are people who were taken from their homes as slaves, transported across vast oceans and forced to work in generally pretty horrible conditions. There is no “might have been exploited” here, they were very clearly exploited in an extreme way.
mjw1007 4y ago
Note that this is the British Indian Ocean Territory, perhaps best known in these parts for having the .io cctld.
- veidr 4y ago
  Oh, the TLD that went down for many hours (more than a day IIRC?) that one time a couple years ago — forcing all the companies like the one I work at, who host their own stuff on .io and use statuspage.io, to really scramble... fun times! This sounds from the article like a great thing — or I mean, at least a partial righting of a historical injustice — but I am also interested to know: does it have any implications for the .io TLD?
- clarionbell 4y ago
  It's also part of the dispute. https://www.jlevy.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/OECD-July-28-2021-Afilias-Ltd.pdf https://www.jlevy.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/OECD-July-28...
pelagicAustral 4y ago
Pop! Here we go. Argentina has entered the chat. Claims over the Falkland Islands are likely getting dusted once again, right side of the Andes.
- LatteLazy 4y ago
  They get raised every time there is an Argentine election or political or economic crisis...
  - pelagicAustral 4y ago
    Every fortnight then.
- mytailorisrich 4y ago
  Cases are very different and the outcome here has no bearing on the Falklands even if Argentina might try to claim otherwise.
- tyho 4y ago
  Absolutely not, the principle is self-determination which means we keep the Falklands by a very clear margin.
  - GekkePrutser 4y ago
    Most of these enclaves and foreign colonies haven't really been kept to support the locals though, but more as a power play. A remote base of operations and a statement to the world. I truly doubt Thatcher really cared about the couple thousand of remote inhabitants during the falklands war, but rather the prospect of losing a strategic remote base and losing face in the geopolitical arena (as well as at home obviously) Importing your own population into conquered territory and letting them vote is a dirty trick we don't accept from countries like Russia but using it as a justification ourselves undermines our legitimacy of that argument. The fact that these things happened a long time ago makes it a bit less of a statement but still it remains a double standard. The Crimean deportation of locals is also a long time ago but we still blame Russia for taking it over (and rightly so). I'm really happy to see governments finally admitting their mistakes like in this case. The Falklands, Diego Garcia, Gibraltar are all in very strategic places. Now, there is something to be said about protecting the Falklands as Argentina isn't the most stable country in the world, but would the Gibraltar population really be so much worse off if they were ruled by Spain? The hundreds of thousands of British that live in Spain clearly don't think so.
clarionbell 4y ago
Nobody can blame people wanting to return to their homes. But if I were in their shoes I'd be very careful about what their new government will do next. People of Chagos were useful as a leverage and international shaming tool. But once they return, and islands go to Mauritius ... they will be tiny, economically deprived minority, sitting so far unexploited resource trove. And you can ask East Timor how that goes. The marine protection area, one of the largest in the world, is obviously going to disappear. UN calls it illegitimate land grab, and it technically is, so without the only backer (UK), there will be nothing holding back exploitation.
- goodcanadian 4y ago
  I have long been generally supportive of the people's right to return, but I am far more sceptical of Mauritius' claim to the islands. They were administered from Mauritius when Mauritius was a British colony, but otherwise, they do not have a strong geographical or historical connection there. I guess, ultimately, it is up to the Chagosian people what political arrangements they want, and I hope the negotiators make determining that a priority.
  - ijuhoor 4y ago
    I’m not expecting my government (Mauritius) do do some meaningful change though. They already did a similar thing in a small island: https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/opinions/2021/8/5/why-is-india-building-a-military-base-on-agalega-island https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/opinions/2021/8/5/why-is-india...
- funshed 4y ago
  Indeed - though negotiations could tie the USA and UK into some form of recognition and protection. Especialy since USA wants to keep its base.
treme 4y ago
I'm very surprised to hear of this, my guess is US will just forever stall their 'negotiation' with UK considering Chagos is a key military interest in the region for the US
fazfq 4y ago
"Conservative" government.
lotophage 4y ago
An article in The Atlantic about it recently too: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/07/reclaiming-chagos-islands-british-colonization/638444/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/07/reclaim...
Stevvo 4y ago
A great example of non-violent resistance. The UK would not be at the table without the flag-raising trip; it forced their hand as the only other option was violently confronting the landing Mauritian vessel.

65 points by ijuhoor 4y ago

Article title: > UK agrees to negotiate Title on HN: > UK agrees to hand over title should be changed. Did Guardian update it at their end?

iso1631 4y ago
You can tell " UK to hand over Chagos back to Mauritius" isn't a Guardian title -- no spelling mistakes.
- ijuhoor 4y ago
  My bad, I got excited. I can't edit the title though.
- ukoki 4y ago
  As long as we're being pedantic: "hand over X back to" is mixing phrases -- are they handing it over or handing it back? It should be "hand X over to" or "hand X back to"

teleforce 4y ago

Apparently the Chagos Archipelago is much closer in distance to the Maldives than Mauritius. It would not be a surprise if they are claiming that area as well.

easytiger 4y ago

Back? They weren't populated until the British brought them there and were never a Mauritian property. Futhermore the only people who lived there were there as employees of the Chagos Agalega Company. From 1838 onwards. It's like getting a job on an oil rig and demanding you get to keep the rig. The fog of pseudo history written in terms of marxist terminology descends on our civilisation determined to rewrite reality https://www.uniset.ca/naty/2003EWHC2222.htm https://www.uniset.ca/naty/2003EWHC2222.htm

sterlind 4y ago
from your own link: > The abolition of slavery in 1833, and the entitlement of slaves to remain in the colony in which they were freed, meant that many freed slaves had continued to work the plantations. so slaves worked the plantations on the island before 1838. and as an aside, what do you mean by Marxist terminology? I didn't see "proletariat" or "bourgeoisie," nor workers seizing the means of production. it's sloppy and lazy to use "Marxism" as a catch-all bogeyman.
- easytiger 4y ago
  > so slaves worked the plantations on the island before 1838. Yes, they were freed by the British and compensated in 1833. As they were post removal in 68. 1838 was the year they were working in Chagos on 2 year rolling contracts (as was common for non enslaved people in such businesses prior to 1833). > so slaves worked the plantations on the island before 1838. And they were brought there by the british & french mainly. The french & dutch inhabited it first, before any of these people's ancestors. > and as an aside, what do you mean by Marxist terminology? I didn't see "proletariat" or "bourgeoisie," nor workers seizing the means of production. it's sloppy and lazy to use "Marxism" as a catch-all bogeyman. Ignoring history by framing everything as a class/exploitation problem rather than looking at what really happened. It's very common to ignore history now and use feelings to assert because someone might have been exploited that overrides reality.
  - MrsPeaches 4y ago
    > And they were brought there by the british & french mainly. So were slaves in the Caribbean. Should they not have rights to the islands on which they have lived for generations? It’s pretty simple: They were taken from their homes as slaves. They were forced to work in plantations for generations. Slavery ended but they had no “home” to return to and called the island where they had settled home. Whether they were forcible taken there doesn’t suddenly mean it’s not their home. > because someone might have been exploited Can we just be super clear that we are talking about former slaves here. As much as might like to talk about “compensation” (source??) these are people who were taken from their homes as slaves, transported across vast oceans and forced to work in generally pretty horrible conditions. There is no “might have been exploited” here, they were very clearly exploited in an extreme way.

mjw1007 4y ago

Note that this is the British Indian Ocean Territory, perhaps best known in these parts for having the .io cctld.

veidr 4y ago
Oh, the TLD that went down for many hours (more than a day IIRC?) that one time a couple years ago — forcing all the companies like the one I work at, who host their own stuff on .io and use statuspage.io, to really scramble... fun times! This sounds from the article like a great thing — or I mean, at least a partial righting of a historical injustice — but I am also interested to know: does it have any implications for the .io TLD?
clarionbell 4y ago
It's also part of the dispute. https://www.jlevy.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/OECD-July-28-2021-Afilias-Ltd.pdf https://www.jlevy.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/OECD-July-28...

pelagicAustral 4y ago

Pop! Here we go. Argentina has entered the chat. Claims over the Falkland Islands are likely getting dusted once again, right side of the Andes.

LatteLazy 4y ago
They get raised every time there is an Argentine election or political or economic crisis...
- pelagicAustral 4y ago
  Every fortnight then.
mytailorisrich 4y ago
Cases are very different and the outcome here has no bearing on the Falklands even if Argentina might try to claim otherwise.
tyho 4y ago
Absolutely not, the principle is self-determination which means we keep the Falklands by a very clear margin.
- GekkePrutser 4y ago
  Most of these enclaves and foreign colonies haven't really been kept to support the locals though, but more as a power play. A remote base of operations and a statement to the world. I truly doubt Thatcher really cared about the couple thousand of remote inhabitants during the falklands war, but rather the prospect of losing a strategic remote base and losing face in the geopolitical arena (as well as at home obviously) Importing your own population into conquered territory and letting them vote is a dirty trick we don't accept from countries like Russia but using it as a justification ourselves undermines our legitimacy of that argument. The fact that these things happened a long time ago makes it a bit less of a statement but still it remains a double standard. The Crimean deportation of locals is also a long time ago but we still blame Russia for taking it over (and rightly so). I'm really happy to see governments finally admitting their mistakes like in this case. The Falklands, Diego Garcia, Gibraltar are all in very strategic places. Now, there is something to be said about protecting the Falklands as Argentina isn't the most stable country in the world, but would the Gibraltar population really be so much worse off if they were ruled by Spain? The hundreds of thousands of British that live in Spain clearly don't think so.

clarionbell 4y ago

Nobody can blame people wanting to return to their homes. But if I were in their shoes I'd be very careful about what their new government will do next. People of Chagos were useful as a leverage and international shaming tool. But once they return, and islands go to Mauritius ... they will be tiny, economically deprived minority, sitting so far unexploited resource trove. And you can ask East Timor how that goes. The marine protection area, one of the largest in the world, is obviously going to disappear. UN calls it illegitimate land grab, and it technically is, so without the only backer (UK), there will be nothing holding back exploitation.

goodcanadian 4y ago
I have long been generally supportive of the people's right to return, but I am far more sceptical of Mauritius' claim to the islands. They were administered from Mauritius when Mauritius was a British colony, but otherwise, they do not have a strong geographical or historical connection there. I guess, ultimately, it is up to the Chagosian people what political arrangements they want, and I hope the negotiators make determining that a priority.
- ijuhoor 4y ago
  I’m not expecting my government (Mauritius) do do some meaningful change though. They already did a similar thing in a small island: https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/opinions/2021/8/5/why-is-india-building-a-military-base-on-agalega-island https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/opinions/2021/8/5/why-is-india...
funshed 4y ago
Indeed - though negotiations could tie the USA and UK into some form of recognition and protection. Especialy since USA wants to keep its base.

treme 4y ago

I'm very surprised to hear of this, my guess is US will just forever stall their 'negotiation' with UK considering Chagos is a key military interest in the region for the US

fazfq 4y ago

"Conservative" government.

lotophage 4y ago

An article in The Atlantic about it recently too: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/07/reclaiming-chagos-islands-british-colonization/638444/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/07/reclaim...

Stevvo 4y ago

A great example of non-violent resistance. The UK would not be at the table without the flag-raising trip; it forced their hand as the only other option was violently confronting the landing Mauritian vessel.