After 1945, Europe lost this geopolitical realism. Realism, in its translation “nationalist”, however, reappeared in the “Third World”. He was the direct heir to the movements in India or the Arab-Muslim world between 1919 and 1945 against British tutelage. In 1947, India acquires independence. The keystone of the British imperial system collapses, dragging the rest in its wake. In 1949, MAO’s victory in China prevented the United States from organizing China as a market / outlet for 700 million consumers, to the benefit of the American industry. Indonesia also proclaims its independence. In 1952, MOSSADEGH sought to nationalize the Anglo-American oil of Iran. In 1954, the rural population of Algeria revolted against the French State who had used their best men to fight against Germany (also allied with the Arabs) and did not grant the equality of rights between Muslims on the one hand and Jews and Christians on the other. The same year, NASSER overthrows the corrupt monarchy of the Wren FAROUK and announces its intention to nationalize the Suez Canal. In 1955, non-aligned people gather in Bandoeng to proclaim their “equi-distance” with regard to the blocks. From 1960, Africa emerges European tutels, to fall quickly under the rule of neo-colonial multinationals. In Latin America, nationalisms of liberation assert themselves, especially in the Peronist era in Argentina. All these movements contribute to avenge the defeat of Europe and continue the fight against the ideology of “One-World” of ROOSEVELT. Even under the communist label as in Vietnam.
In this global struggle, what will happen more particularly in the Indian Ocean? The withdrawal of the British leaves a “void”. This fear of “emptiness” is the hallmark of imperialism. Indeed, why would there not be a “vacuum” in the Indian Ocean? From the perspective of the “super-fat”, the voids would generate wars and “international security” could collapse if there is no arbitrage of a super-big. The coastal states of the Indian Ocean have certainly experienced conflicts in the wake of decolonization, but these conflicts are not the scale of a world war and have remained limited to their ultimately limited cadres. The risk of escalating conflict into a global cataclysm is much greater when a superpower directly interferes. The best proof is the two world wars in which the British Empire exercised too much political and military responsibility in the Indian Ocean and elsewhere, without having all the human and material resources necessary for a task of this magnitude. Any competition, even legitimate, any desire for independence on the part of the colonized peoples was perceived as “dangerous”. Behind the eminently “moral” myth of international security mandatorily arbitrated by Washington or Moscow (and ultimately more often by Washington than by Moscow) hides a hegemonic will, a willingness to freeze all developments in favor of the duopoly from Yalta and Potsdam. There is “danger” only if we consider “sacred” the globalist economic order, intolerant towards any kind of self-centered semi-autarchic zone, with regard to any civilizational zone impervious to speeches and fashions of America. HAUSHOFER believed, like SCHMITT or Julien FREUND, that conflictuality was unavoidable and that the will to strike this conflictuality was a refusal of the future of the world, mobility and evolution. Thus, on the basis of this philosophy of conflictuality, the diversity resulting from national independence acquired by the riparian countries of the Indian Ocean is the only legitimate, even if it generates localized conflicts.
It was because they did not want another great power to take over from the British that GANDHI and NEHRU proclaimed sovereignty as their main goal. But this Indian sovereignty, optimally viable only if the waters of the Indian Ocean are not furrowed by the fleets of the superpowers, was threatened by the arrival, at first discreet, Americans and Soviets. The Americans will seize Diego Garcia, island of which we already mentioned the strategic importance. Gold that holds Diego Garcia, holds one of the top of the oceanic triangle that ensures the control of the Middle Sea. The USA takes over the role of the British thalassocracy. In this usurpation, residents can only oppose a philosophy of disengagement, non-alignment. Thus, Mauritius, backed by India, will claim the full possession of Diego Garcia. The Malagasy President Didier RATSIRAKA will reduce to 2.5%