[throw0101d]

> 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.

[qingcharles]

Legally 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.

[mcintyre1994]

The 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

[connicpu]

It's easier to move a single military base at the end of a lease than an entire country

[mmooss]

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?

[BurningFrog]

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.

[throw0101d]

> The lease expires in 2123. The militarily strategic landscape then is pretty much unknowable.

I bet that's what the UK thought about Hong Kong in the late 1800s, but when 1996 rolled around I think they (and many HKers) would have liked a longer-and-99-years lease.

While geography isn't quite destiny, it is fairly important, and having a random rock in a place where there are no other rocks will always be useful IMHO (unless we perhaps develop teleportation).

[BobAliceInATree]

in 99 years, most of the island probably will be underwater due to climate change.

[vixen99]

Further information on 13,000 islands: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17538947.2024.2...

"Of over 13,000 islands examined, approximately 12% experienced significant shifts in shoreline positions. The total shoreline length of these islands approaches 200,000 km, with 7.57% showing signs of landward erosion and 6.05% expanding seaward. Human activities, particularly reclamation and land filling, were identified as primary drivers of local shoreline transformations, while natural factors have a comparatively minor impact. "

[BurningFrog]

The island is certainly in the risk zone, but I think that is also unknowable.

My guess is that by carbon sequestering and/or SO2 injection in the stratosphere, the climate change will be controllable within a few decades.

[skeledrew]

It's very likely that we're already beyond some of the tipping points, and others are very close[0]. We're basically going into the mitigation phase now by my understanding.

[0] https://www.space.com/climate-tipping-points-closer-than-rea...

[pabs3]

> SO2 injection in the stratosphere

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_Piercer#Plot

[callamdelaney]

And in 299 years the climate may have changed again, as it is wont to do (and has always done).

[ClumsyPilot]

And 65 million years ago an asteroid detonated with the power of all of the world’s nukes combined, so there is no need to worry about nuclear war.

And timespans are like that for climate too, millions of years not 299

[mmooss]

Is that a subtle attempt to argue that climate is changing on it's own, and not by human agency? Say it if you mean it.

[nkrisc]

And in 1000 years it will be different again. What’s your point? The fact it has and will always change doesn’t change anything about what’s happening now.

We can choose to mitigate the change or make it worse for ourselves.

[mmooss]

I wonder if they would have anticipated its value. I can anticipate a moon base would be valuable in 2123 even though it has little present value.

[input_sh]

Considering that 99 years ago both Maldives and India were still colonised (and would remain so for decades), I'm gonna go out on a limb by saying that no, Chagos Islands weren't seen as particularly important back then.

[gaadd33]

It would have had some value as a coaling or oiling station thought

[bunabhucan]

Why would the worlds superpower need that when they had India?

[logifail]

Q: Is there a reason for making a lease 99 years, rather than - say - 999 years?

[noselasd]

Historically 99 years was the longest term for leases in English laws. I don't think that's incorporated in laws any more, but it has just continued as common practice.

[frereubu]

You may be right historically, but I don't think it's common practice any more - there are quite a few "virtual freehold" leases of 999 years, and most other domestic leaseholds are 125+ years when they start. When a leashold goes below 90 years its value dips sharply.

[rswail]

999 years is considered a "permanent" lease [1]. 99 years is considered a "more than a lifetime lease" [2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/999-year_lease [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99-year_lease

[Maken]

So they can renegotiate the terms of the leasing in a reasonable time span?

[fosk]

I am sure that if at the end of 99 years the US or the UK still really really want to retain them, they will find a way (another lease, or by force).

Mauritius is not China. Not that I am suggesting for this to happen, but what are they going to do if the UK just decides not to leave after 99 years?

[ClumsyPilot]

They said basically the same thing about HongKong. You can’t predict political landscape in 100 years

[Yeul]

The Chinese negotiators for Kowloon deliberately settled on 99 years. Probably because they knew they'd be lynched by the Chinese public otherwise. It was not a mistake made by the British they just couldn't get a better deal.

[ethbr1]

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.

[reaperducer]

  Close 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.

[ethbr1]

The Maldives are only ~400mi N of Diego Garcia.

[vel0city]

So its 400mi away from another set of tiny islands which themselves are hundreds of miles from the mainland.

I'd still argue that's pretty much "not close to anywhere."

[mmooss]

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

[ethbr1]

They're all pretty far from land and in the same general area.

If Diego Garcia were no longer an option, there would be alternatives. Especially with US levels of lease money.

That said, few of them are quite as remote as Diego Garcia. Which means not quite as easy to secretly fly RQ-180s or whatever the hell is more clandestinely based there.

[mmooss]

I don't think geography is the challenge as much as politics. What country and populace will give up their ancestral land to a foreign military base. Would you?

Remember that the small islands don't have much land to begin with, and bases are large.

[avinash]

Possibly. The treaty has not been signed yet.

Things will become clearer in the coming weeks.

[scottLobster]

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.

[simonh]

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.

[skissane]

> 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.

[mhh__]

> 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

This is something that our America obsessed cultural elite have forgotten. The "Brown versus Education versus Alien versus predator" style of activist/political focus on the courts rather than parliament is quite ridiculous at times.

[selimthegrim]

Whoever wins, the King/Queen loses?

[smegger001]

until the government decides that only evidence they like can be presented to the court like the last administration did with their Rwanda plan for migrants.

[lmm]

The UK government never wanted to keep Hong Kong. (It may have wanted to pantomime trying to keep it to placate some voters).

While the UK did have a long history of legal continuity, it's made a lot of dramatic changes in recent years - the switch to the Supreme Court which has then made some legally bizarre decisions, the complete demolition of the House of Lords over a pretty short period, the efforts to entrench human rights legislation which have simply no precedent in UK constitutional history at all...

[ClumsyPilot]

> efforts to entrench human rights legislation which have simply no precedent in UK constitutional history at all...

How so? UK was instrumental in creating the European Court of Human rights? Surely they did not believe at the time that they are just creating it for everyone else?

[lmm]

The people who created the ECHR were very conscious that they were doing something unprecedented, that would change European jurisprudence dramatically. Indeed that was something they trumpeted.

[throwuk3]

as always UK courts favour their country/people.

[ta1243]

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.

[thefounder]

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