11 ms·
UK will give sovereignty of Chagos Islands to Mauritius
- zarzavat 2y agoDid they agree who will get the the .io ccTLD? Or is that up to ICANN?
- corobo 2y agoI have no answers - just a note there's another discussion regarding .io here if anyone wants more readin' Ask HN: What happens to ".io" TLD after UK gives back the Chagos Islands? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41729526 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41729526
- rafram 2y agoThe British Indian Ocean Territory is probably better known in the tech world for its top-level domain: .io.
- exdsq 2y agoWhich is owned by a hedge fund, and thankfully not part of this deal (so it's not at risk!)
- Scoundreller 2y agoWhat are some new countries we can create so we end up with a cool TLD? There’s gotta be someone willing to fund this.
- fragmede 2y ago.js would be quite a popular one.
- ezfe 2y agoIt being owned by a hedge fund doesn't change the fact that ICAAN policies will retire the ccTLD. Whether they choose to NOT APPLY those policies is a different matter that, again, isn't changed by who owns it but instead by use.
- toyg 2y agoIt might well be at risk. Extensive discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41729526 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41729526 TL;DR: ICANN policy forces deletion if CC disappears from the ISO list of countries, with one famous exception (.su); but Mauritius could cut a Tuvalu-style deal to maintain it.
- lolinder 2y agoTLD "owners" own TLDs in much the same way that we own domains, and it's very possible that ICANN phases out the .io domain when the British Indian Ocean Territory ceases to exist. From what we gathered in the other thread it somewhat depends on what ISO decides to do with its codes. At a minimum I expect that control over the .io domain will go to Mauritius and they'll be able to reassign it as desired (since they never contracted with the hedge fund). But the typical path for a code when its country goes defunct is to get phased out.
- gnfargbl 2y agoThe more I think about it, the more I agree that this is the likely outcome. IO has been in the ISO standard forever, so there's plenty of historical precedent (like UK). Furthermore, it continues to be descriptive of a specific part of the world (like SU). The easy move here is for the ISO committee to mark IO as exceptionally reserved, for ICANN to declare that this of course makes it a special historical case which sets no precedent, and for everything to continue mostly as usual. This assumes, of course, that ICANN aren't looking to make some kind of example/statement about misuse of ccTLDs. If they are, things may be different.
- Andaith 2y agoOk now THAT is interesting. I always thought it was a tech-focused domain, for input/output. :)
- lucb1e 2y agoThe two-letter ones are all countries/regions/territories. See also .su for a blast (thankfully not literal) from the past https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.su https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.su
- ksec 2y agoWhat 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 )
- quickthrowman 2y ago> 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 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_Naval_Base
- ossobuco 2y ago> 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.
- ta1243 2y agoSure. 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.
- somat 2y agoOne of the more surreal bits of the situation around Guantanamo bay is that the US was very careful to pay the lease amount(nowdays a trivial $4000 dollers) and Cuba was very careful about not cashing the payments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban%E2%80%93American_Treaty_of_Relations_(1903) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban%E2%80%93American_Treaty_... Another weird thing was the subject of Cuban workers at the outpost. When relations soured between the countries Cuba wanted to isolate the base completely, And I have no clue about internal Cuban politics, but that stance was then lightened to "no new workers could be hired, but existing ones could stay employed" so for 59 years there was a steadily dwindling number of commuters from Guantanimo city to the base until the last one retired in 2012.
- pbiggar 2y ago> 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
- hermitcrab 2y agoAnd 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.
- rich_sasha 2y ago> the Roman Empire didn't really disappear - it became a church, the British Empire didn't really disappear - it became a bank. Great quip!
- sealeck 2y agoThere will always be some crime in any financial centre, but I think there's limited evidence that there's proportionally more financial crime going on in London than e.g. NYC or Frankfurt.
- mhh__ 2y agoThe idea that serious evil is necessarily illegal in the first place is probably hilariously naive to begin with.
- hermitcrab 2y ago>there's limited evidence Because the UK government is trying very hard to look the other way?
- krapp 2y agoI 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.
- janice1999 2y agoSee 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-29236323/episode/part-one-how-the-british-empire-186807534/ https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236...
- itohihiyt 2y agoI'm unaware of the details but wasn't the island chain sold to the British?
- teractiveodular 2y agoFrance ceded Mauritius and its outlying islands to the UK. When the UK granted Mauritius independence, it held back the Chagos Islands and forcibly deported all their inhabitants, leading to the status quo until today.
- matthewmorgan 2y agoSome 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
- jplrssn 2y agoThe 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 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-55848126
- matthewmorgan 2y agoIrrelevant.
- Maxatar 2y agoMaybe to you, but not to the UK government.
- SllX 2y agoThe UK has a permanent seat on the UNSC including the ultimate single-member veto and on the sliding scale of fiction to non-fiction, international law is a lot closer to the fictional end. The UK choosing to transfer sovereignty to another country is not in-line with a ruling that says they don’t have sovereignty. They’ve chosen to be done with this controversy.
- BurningFrog 2y agoThe UN General Assembly is little more than an opinion poll, legally speaking.
- 10xalphadev 2y agoThe UN is relevant how? Anyway, UK did the right thing, though. Now get rid of that US hegemony-supporting base.
- bpodgursky 2y ago> 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.
- exdsq 2y agoI believe we will keep the port there with the US?
- mppm 2y agoHuh? 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.
- gottorf 2y agoIt would be naive to believe that the Chinese will not build a competing naval base there, and encroach upon Mauritius's sovereignty over time.
- mppm 2y agoApart 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.
- MaxHoppersGhost 2y agoYou could say the same about the South China Sea before the Chinese started building islands out there.
- tmpz22 2y agoInterestingly 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.
- zie 2y agoI imagine ALL of this was hinging on some long term agreement where the US gets to keep Diego Garcia.
- qingcharles 2y agoIt seems the US are continuing to pay the UK and the UK is buying off Mauritius.
- avinash 2y agoI'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.
- 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.
- 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 ago
- ThinkBeat 2y agoYeah... 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.
- 10xalphadev 2y agoThis. The US hegemon is everywhere it shouldn't be. And no one stands up. Well, we'll see what happens after UA.
- golergka 2y agoAfter Ukraine a lot more countries, especially in there neighbourhood of Russia will ask Americans for their military bases.
- OfficeChad 2y ago[dead]
- kibwen 2y ago> 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.
- dang 2y agoRelated ongoing thread: Ask HN: What happens to ".io" TLD after UK gives back the Chagos Islands? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41729526 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41729526 - Oct 2024 (153 comments)
- rich_sasha 2y agoI 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.
- khuey 2y agoSea level rise may mean that a 99 year lease is longer than the island will be habitable.
- tightbookkeeper 2y agoI’ll take that bet.
- morkalork 2y agoYou should move to Nantucket island then, lots of prime real-estate there
- itsoktocry 2y agoThe real estate in Nantucket is extremely expensive, how does this comment make sense?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- thehappypm 2y agoErm, even if the coast is flooded, Mauritius is a big island with plenty of land well above sea level.
- ojbyrne 2y agoThe discussion is about Diego Garcia.
- 2y ago
- saaaaaam 2y agoWorth reading Kevin Murphy’s piece here: https://domainincite.com/30395-future-of-io-domains-uncertain-as-uk-hands-over-chagos-islands 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.
- Cyclone_ 2y agoI 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.
- thomascountz 2y agoMauritius was a sponsor to the Treaty of Pelindaba/African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty. The US's stockpile on Diego Garcia likely violates this.
- dan-robertson 2y agoI 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.
- voidUpdate 2y agoThis is exactly what I thought when I read this. https://what-if.xkcd.com/48/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/48/ makes no mention of the islands but I feel like it might cause a sunset now?
- Bnjoroge 2y agoTook them long enough. Glad to see the UK relinquish ownership of these islands
- eadmund 2y agoVery 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.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Kognito 2y agoQueen Elizabeth II had no involvement in the decision to defend the Falklands, other than perhaps some private counsel with the then Prime Minister, just as King Charles III will have had no involvement in this decision.
- phyalow 2y agoOfficially sure. Practically? Not a chance.
- stephen_g 2y agoWhy is it sad for the UK to no longer claim as their own and occupy a small piece of land that the ICJ ruled they didn't even lawfully have sovereignty over?
- p_l 2y agoThe difference is that Falklanders at multiple times established they want to be British, more than the government in London wanted them. Whereas Chagos Islands inhabitants were violently expulsed and the only people on site are occupation forces.
- eadmund 2y agoThe inhabitants were planters and their workers (originally slaves imported in the 1700s); no-one is native to the islands. And the poor folks who were expelled (and their descendants) were not even consulted this time around — this is purely a deal between the United Kingdom and Mauritius, whose only relationship with the islands is that they were both lumped together under the old colonial administration.
- ikmckenz 2y agoThe 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.
- robjwells 2y agoFor 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/ 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-the-chagos-islands-1965-73/ https://www.markcurtis.info/2007/02/12/the-depopulation-of-t...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- mmooss 2y agoHopefully I'm not too late - the Guardian's coverage included this important bit: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/03/britain-to-return-chagos-islands-to-mauritius-ending-years-of-dispute 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.”
- dveeden2 2y agohttps://freakonomics.com/podcast/top-level-domains/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/top-level-domains/ is a podcast that talks about the economics of TLDs like ".io".
- golergka 2y agoHere in Argentina these news have been met with great enthusiasm.
- mhh__ 2y agoSo just as considerate of the chagossians as the population of the Falklands then?
- clarionbell 2y agoLocals matter only when it's convenient. Note that this agreement wasn't negotiated with people who lived on Chagos islands, but with government that claims the territory.
- supergirl 2y agobad 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
- botanical 2y agoFrance needs to give back sovereignty of so many islands around Madagascar. It's galling that they still act like a colonial state.
- weevil 2y agoDon't you mean 'Gaulling'
- sgu999 2y agoThe uninhabited ones? Aside from politicians, does anyone care really?
- ajlhasda 2y agoLike Mayotte? The population there is the single biggest electorate for the far right. Yes, that's right; they are black Muslims yet vote for Le Pen's party around 60%. That's because the very last thing they want is to rejoin the Comoros and be ruled by their former slavers again; France abolished slavery when it took control of Mayotte, which never was a real independent nation but an island constantly taken over by various Muslim warlords or pirates.
- 01jonny01 2y agoPathetic weak UK government
- phyalow 2y agoI absolutely agree. Lammy’s justification about “closing a vector for illegal immigration” just shows how spineless they all are (especially the new lot Kier & Co.). No creativity, no defense of national interests. Just fear of negative tabloid headlines.
- 01jonny01 2y ago100% it makes me emotional when I see the rate of decline. The calibre of this goverment is shocking, we deserve better than TwoTierKeir and Lammy. Personally I am suspicious about why Starmer tried to pushed this through when no one was looking. Whats behind it? Maybe China promising a good deal on carbon capture technology.
- tarkin2 2y agoThe 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?
- rldjbpin 2y agodiego 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 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.
- CatWChainsaw 2y agoGeography Now! Mauritius: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrOwkNEHIlk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrOwkNEHIlk