Ask HN: What happens to ".io" TLD after UK gives back the Chagos Islands? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41729526
There’s gotta be someone willing to fund this.
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.
Extensive discussion here: 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.
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.
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.
I also assume .io no longer being controlled by UK? ( Which is somewhat worrying )
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
Ah, you mean the illegal torture prison against which the Cuban government has been protesting since 1959.
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.
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.
Not true at all, as regards the political aspects. There's also the people living there, or who rather had been until they were forcibly deported[0] long so long ago. And their situation also has very considerable legal and political significance. In regard to which there's also been an ICJ case with several very sharply-worded rulings starting 2019. It is also quite significant in regard to the global movement in favor of Right of Return[1], with implications for a certain third country[2] that not so coincidentally shares an excrutiatingly vexed history with both the islands' illegal occupiers up until the current date.
Of course, there are many in this crowd who at this point will say: "The fuck it does -- no one cares about the Chagossians and their long-standing claims for reparations for what the US and UK have done to them along with this pesky thing some people refer to as moral injury. And of course the ICJ doesn't matter anyway."
But I say: These things very much do matter. And it is the very fact that the US and UK thought (until recently with near certainty) that they could keep presenting a middle finger to these people and their claims, not to mention their simple dignity as human beings for so long without any repercussions is precisely why it matters, both politically and in legal terms.
And of course those who say the ICJ doesn't matter -- or that Right of Return doesn't matter -- don't matter anyway.
[0] - https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/02/15/thats-when-nightmare-s...
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return
[2] - https://www.thenationalnews.com/mena/palestine-israel/2024/0...
Good note at the end
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.
Great quip!
Because the UK government is trying very hard to look the other way?
[1] https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236...
But yeah, Jersey is also an overseas territory, can the government just give that away?
If Parliament tried to ban booze (as the US Federal Government once did) that's probably not going to go well, and maybe they would (like the US government) be forced to undo that - but all they did here was give away something very few of their citizens likely even knew they had. I was surprised it made headlines.
They might get punished in the next election or they may not.
More precisely only the PM can call an election I believe.
If what they do is sufficiently contrary to the will of the people (or at least, those with weapons and the will to use them), they'll get punished sooner than that. Laws and constitutions are a useful abstraction but ultimately an imperfect one.
I vaguely remember handing over the Falkland Islands to Argentina was actually on the cards before the invasion, so perhaps surprisingly the answer is "yes".
It seems like people forget that the UK ceded everything from Ireland which was a UK constituent as opposed to a UK subject as well as Canada, Australia, India and numerous other territories.
In the UK, parliament is supreme and has the final authority.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
High level overview is that it doesn’t look that different, and like most things concerning UK law and the laws of Crown Dependencies, a lot of it is just custom. There’s long been a debate over how much the UK’s Parliament can unilaterally legislate over them without their consent which remains largely untested because by custom they don’t. Overseas Territories are to my understanding creatures of the UK Parliament and remnants of the Empire whereas Jersey and Guernsey are the remnants of Normandy which the British Crown managed to retain when they lost the mainland to France. I don’t remember much about Manx history though, so I’ll refrain from commenting on them specifically.
But since you put out an AMA: how’s life in Bermuda? Would you recommend it?
The weather is delightful, the taxes acceptable, the digital infrastructure ok. It can be an expensive place to live but a single person with no dependants could live here on $4k a month. The path to permanent residence is difficult but manageable for those who bring real value to the place (think jobs or significant capital). The people are generally friendly (though as with anywhere there are exceptions) and the Premier has at least some Software experience.
It is a very interesting question, in my humble opinion, As to Bermuda's relations with the British crown. So far as I am aware there has never been a law passed by the British parliament and enforced through the privy council which was not passed by the Bermuda Parliament before commencement. Importantly (and uniquely for the OTs). Bermuda was established prior to the Act of Union and so has a relationship with the "crown of England" rather than the "crown of Great Britain" having been settled in 1612.
The real lever of power in congress is the parliamentary process in the Senate.
Wyoming has more sheep than people, but they are represented on the same basis as California, Florida, etc.
Not the case. The executive makes treaties. Parliament can scrutinise them but has no general ratification or veto role. See https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-... .
My point was that there is no constitutional requirement for parliament to ratify treaties.
Yes, it can delay a treaty. It could even pass legislation preventing a treaty from having legal effect. But that would require a extraordinary breakdown in parliamentary party discipline.
There is no general rule that parliament has to ratify, or even scrutinise, a treaty. The main exceptions are if the treaty requires domestic legislation to be passed by parliament, or if the treaty has significant constitutionap implications. Given our un-codified constitution here in the UK, I would imagine the latter constaint comes with some wriggle-room.
This [2] briefing by the House of Commons Library lays it all out.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_in_the_Unite...
[2] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...
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.
I expect it's a bit simpler than that: anti-colonial policies resonate deeply with African voters, and are very uncontroversial.
[1] Mostly, not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_Africa#/media/Fil...
Meanwhile, behind the scenes, they can go cap in hand to $bloodyColonialists and ask "do you want me to shut up? Give me $something".
This requires no shadowy influence from this or that supposed Great Power.
Look at the Chagos Islands themselves — they were literally not inhabited until Europeans settled them. There's no "decolonization" narrative here, because there's no native population.
Once the UK leaves the Chagos islands, it will be about foreign aid with strings attached, or IMF loans, or foreign investment in farmland, or whatever. It's not a solvable problem.
Decolonization is not simply about removing troops from here or there, it's about taking responsibility for actions that enriched $motherland at the expense of $colony. French and British colonialists moved people to Chagos for their own profit, and then (together with Americans) ejected their descendants from what had become, by then, a homeland; pushing governments to take responsibility for these actions is the moral thing to do.
There is no amount of "decolonizing" the UK can do that will put an end to the grievances. As long as African warlords want to blame their problems on someone else, they will find a way to link it in some nebulous way to lasting inter-generational damage by ex-colonizers.
That's not true. Plenty of decolonized countries just go about their business, once the outstanding issues are solved; or even when they try to stir shit, nobody listens to them.
Here though we do have an outstanding problem that needs to be solved. Once the islands go to Mauritius and the expelled population is resettled, there will be nothing left to complain about in that particular area. Obviously, thanks to the sheer size of injustice perpetrated in colonial times, there will be plenty left to complain about elsewhere. The only answer is to solve problems with goodwill, not to bury our heads in the sand pretending our ancestors never did what they did.
The African Union on Thursday hailed the “historic political agreement” between the UK and Mauritius regarding the sovereignty of the Chagos Islands.
“This significant milestone marks a major victory for the cause of Decolonialization, International Law, and the rightful self-determination of the people of Mauritius, bringing to an end to decades of dispute,” African Union Chairman Moussa Faki Mahamat stated in a message posted on X (formerly Twitter).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.
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.
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.
Things will become clearer in the coming weeks.
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.
Close to Africa/ME: Maldives, Seychelles, Comoros, Mayotte
Close to SE Asia: Cocos and Christmas Island
I'd still argue that's pretty much "not close to anywhere."
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.
Remember that the small islands don't have much land to begin with, and bases are large.
At some point leasing away an island, so that everyone else can have a better quality of life, is an attractive tradeoff.
To a 1925 (99 years ago) military force, the Diego Garcia airfield would have had zero importance.
My guess is that by carbon sequestering and/or SO2 injection in the stratosphere, the climate change will be controllable within a few decades.
[0] https://www.space.com/climate-tipping-points-closer-than-rea...
If we lower the CO2 levels (carbon sequestering) and cool the planet by reflecting more sunlight (SO2 injection in the stratosphere), I'm sure these alleged tipping points will be tipped back again, given some time.
It's good to be aware that doom sells, and the incentive to publish doom predictions for the money they make is very high. Of course, they can still be true...
We'll see how it goes :)
It's like an avalanche. After it starts you can't stop it or get all that snow back on the mountain; it has to get to level ground, melt (if it gets warm enough) and go through an entire cycle that takes time. So yes, things will likely tip back. After humanity either has already been wiped out or fully migrated to other planets and the earth gets the chance to reset itself.
I don't see it as doom, just something inevitable, which we helped to cause. And it's the ones that do all they can to downplay the consequences who make the money, in every instance, as acceptance would be bad for business.
> Climate tipping points — the "points of no return" past which key components of Earth's climate will begin to irreversibly break down — could be triggered by much lower temperatures than scientists previously thought, with some tipping points potentially already reached. There are also many more potential tipping points than scientists previously identified, according to a new study.
I count to 3 maybes only there:
1. tipping points "could be triggered by much lower temperatures" 2. "some tipping points potentially already reached" 3. "according to a new study"
Number 1 and 2 says that this may possibly happen, not that it will!
Number 3 is the worst. Many - probably most - new studies with unexpected results turn out to be wrong, as the Replication Crisis has painfully taught us. They also get the most press, because "new study confirms what we thought" stories don't go viral.
> it's the ones that do all they can to downplay the consequences who make the money
That's absolutely not true in science or publishing. The most sensational results get the most attention and grants and ad dollars.
Humanity would be better off living at the bottom of the ocean than on any other planet; and to think that climate change could make earth less hospitable than any other planet is just absurd. So this is an incredibly naive statement.
On top of that, the closer we get to doomsday the more people will care.
I don't know where I heard it, but there's a saying that "capitalism can solve anything it just waits until the last minute".
That when the time comes enough money and resources will be poured into the solutions(s) that we can fix it.
When is that time? When profits are threatened and our continued way of existence.
Given this, after "giving it some time" a lot of people would be dead as a direct consequence of it not been given enough time.
This is simply fantasy. Sequestering carbon mechanically is an energy losing process. It is also inefficient.
If we burned oil in year 2,000 at (generously) 50% efficiency, it will cost us 4X more in year 2040 to sequester it at 50% (very generous) efficiency.
On the face of it, we would need a sequestering industry that is 4X bigger than the oil industry, and it will be just losing money. Politically, it’s just not going to happen.
Natural sequestration (I.e. tree planting) is not enough by a very large margin (like over 10x)
I don't believe much in tree planting, since it uses up huge areas of the planet forever.
The best way is to separate out CO2 from the atmosphere and pump it into underground cavities. This is the just reversing natural gas extraction, which means it's well established tech. Aside from the separating CO2 part, but that's being worked on.
In a decade or three I expect solar powered machines like this slowly but surely turning the atmosphere back to normal.
We can choose to mitigate the change or make it worse for ourselves.
And timespans are like that for climate too, millions of years not 299
"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. "
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/999-year_lease [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99-year_lease
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).
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?
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.
A lot can happen in 99 years, but as Hong Kong shows, the UK has a decent track record on long term legal continuity.
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.
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.
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...
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?
> There, the UK will ensure operation of the military base for "an initial period" of 99 years.
Also, are you concerned that Diego Garcia might be a target in a war?
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.
The whole thing stands as a monument to the decline of the British Empire.
All of which would probably still mean there are lots of people still alive from the time the regions were separated that feel themselves to be nonetheless connected and unfairly kept apart.
> However, the UK and Mauritius agreed in 1972 that there were 426 Ilois families numbering 1,151 individuals[24] who left the Chagos for Mauritius voluntarily or involuntarily between 1965 and 1973.[14]: par 417 In 1977, the Mauritian government independently listed a total of 557 families totaling 2,323 people — 1,068 adults and 1,255 children — a number that included families that had left voluntarily before the creation of the BIOT and never returned to the Chagos.
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?
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?
When you've lost the argument.
Indeed, I would like to understand the answer to the above question better, since the only reason I can see is that Mauritius as a colony used to govern the islands, and that seems to have just been a convenience of the French that doesn't strongly justify any current claims of sovereignty. And since the UK were the ones to forcibly evict the Chagossians from the islands, it seems a double-injustice to "return" their land to another sovereign power which is equally at a distance from the islands themselves. Do the Chagossians support this claim by the Mauritian government?
They've complained about not being part to the discussion, but in practice most of them have Mauritian citizenship now, and it should be easier for them to deal with the Mauritian government to reclaim some of their land. It's a lesser-evil situation.
So basically nothing of essence will change, this is just a Panama-fication of those islands.
But being a Hong Kong citizen, I have a totally different reaction to this news. (Projected to our own context.)
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.
Taking bets on how much surface area of this atoll will still be above water in 2123.
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)
On the other hand, I bet the UK in 1997 would have hoped for a longer lease on Hong Kong.
In 99 years, being able to exert influence in the region will likely be less important to global trade.
Seems that it's a real issue -- https://www.reuters.com/investigations/sinking-tuvalu-fights...
Id argue they still aren't sufficiently butthurt about it. The UK has sufficient grounds to reclaim HK since china has very much failed to uphold its agreement to keep hong kong democratic for at least 50 years. I guess that's why the CPC goes on gaslighting rants about "whole process democracy" like Jesus CPC. You just had to wait 20 years, what the hell is the rush?
A lot of crazy things look more reasonable when you've had absolute power for a decade and aren't overly concerned about consequences in 20 years.
The Chinese government under Xi has a well-established track record of long-term planning that has done nothing but elevated China's status and leverage in the world.
It really couldn't be further from (e.g.) Putin's style of governance.
> The Chinese government under Xi has a well-established track record of long-term planning that has done nothing but elevated China's status and leverage in the world.
Some of its neighbors in the South China Sea would beg to differ.
China rammed into a Philippine ship knowing they would face zero consequences.
Did they face any consequences?
China’s neighbors can hem and haw all they want. China is the superpower in the Eastern Hemisphere.
If you were intending it in the sense of "people fear them," then agreed.
In 2024 china issued 17% less residence visas than 2019.
Maybe. But the trend is down.
That’s one tiny variable of many.
Should I link you an article about how US immigration hit record lows after the Covid-19 pandemic?
Sometimes the standards of human decency are global.
Hong Kong island is, I would imagine, in no way sustainable as a standalone territory, if China were to be hostile.
They could take it back whenever they wanted and we’d do nothing.
I don’t think the UK law works that way. There may be compensation or other consequences, but it’s unlikely the whole agreement is null and void.
Real life example: I rented a house in UK, paying monthly rent. The heating system and hot water broke down in winter, and it took them three months to fix. It was clear breach of contract, landlord is responsible for the heating system and must fix withing 48 hours.
I was not allowed to break up the contract and leave, and I even went to court over it - my compensation was really pathetic.
I would love for China to have democracy, but Great Britain really doesn't have any moral high ground on the issue nor any business having anything to do with the government there.
If you think they aren't sufficiently butthurt about it, I'd counter that by saying "what can they realistically do about it?" The answer is "absolutely nothing." You want them to invade or something?
They can write a nastygram or something but any of the promises involved with the transfer really mean nothing. An analogy would be asking the next owner of your car to not play any Britney Spears on the radio. Good luck enforcing that.
https://theworld.org/stories/2016/08/30/there-s-movement-tur...
I mean, I completely empathize with their situation, but the fact of the matter is that the UK has even less of a claim to governance over the territory than China does. It’s physically connected to mainland China with no other countries or territories around.
They have the moral right to do so.
But the ground reality is that many Chinese are becoming North Dakotans (Americans).
https://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?g...
And many Hong Kongers are becoming British:
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2022/07/ho...
I would say that it would be a major national security issue and detriment to everyone else in the country if a state was allowed to secede to another country, especially a foreign adversary.
In the United States nobody has the legal right to secede, even if a statehouse passes a law or holds a ballot vote on a constitutional amendment.
As far as emigrating and gaining legal status elsewhere that’s up to the individual.
A universe that respects the right of the people who live somewhere to chose the government they want? We've all seen the protestors waving British flags there.
Abolishing the right of conquest in the early 20th century was one of the great achievements of humanity, and that is not diminished by the impossibility of making it retroactive.
> If you think they aren't sufficiently butthurt about it, I'd counter that by saying "what can they realistically do about it?" The answer is "absolutely nothing." You want them to invade or something?
> They can write a nastygram or something but any of the promises involved with the transfer really mean nothing.
There's a whole spectrum of diplomatic measures the UK could do short of all-out war. Trade restrictions. Hell, full diplomatic recognition of Taiwan is a great option.
The fact that the situation is unfair to HK citizens doesn’t have much relation to the fact that there’s no legitimate reason for the UK to have any involvement at this point in time, unless you’re just plain and simple in favor of imperialism.
In that case you’d be making the argument that people who more closely align with China who live in North Dakota are allowed to just vote and declare North Dakota to be a Chinese province.
There’s a whole spectrum of diplomatic measures that the UK can do that make zero difference in the situation.
Trade restrictions? The UK fully depends on Chinese imports. It would hurt the UK more than China.
Recognition of Taiwan? What would that change? Western countries already defacto recognize Taiwan and work with them as a close ally. This would be changing vocabulary on some documents and plaques.
That would be a curious failure indeed given that Hong Kong wasn't democratic under the British to begin with. It was a crown colony ruled by an appointed governor. The Brits of course never had any legitimate claim to an island they took after a war whose objective was to force opium into China. If they still have dreams of empire I'm sure China would be delighted to see them try though and see how it goes this time.
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...
Err 99 leases are common in lots of places. 99 years is a bit more than a lifetime so not many people care much about what happens afterwards. And it is a lot shorter than in perpetuity which would look bad for whoever is granting it.
https://archive.org/details/longtermlandlea00mcmigoog/page/n...
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.
Whereas Chagos Islands inhabitants were violently expulsed and the only people on site are occupation forces.
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.
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...
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.”
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.
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.