For Europe: a continental liberation program

Fostering change in Europe means deploying a continental liberation agenda. There is no change possible without such a great purpose. The liberation of our continent implies as a first step the constitution of confederative zones like Scandinavia (Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland), the Balkans (Greece, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Romania), Mitteleuropa (Benelux, GDR, RFA, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Austria). Italy, Spain (with Portugal) and France constitute sufficiently large spaces in view of this first stage. The idea of ​​a Scandinavian confederation has been the central axis of Swedish politics since 1944. The discovery of archives dating back to this year has just shown that Sweden was planning to mobilize 550,000 soldiers to liberate Denmark and Norway and to avoid at the same time, that Americans, British and Soviets do not seize Scandinavian territories. In this perspective, Scandinavia was to remain with the Scandinavians.

Since the economist NAUMANN, who wrote a project of “Mitteleuropa” in 1916, the idea of ​​a Swiss-type confederation applying to the Benelux countries, Germany and the remnants of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy had vanished. in the wake of the Treaty of Versailles, economic crises (1929) and the Hitlerian parenthesis. The Benelux states had preferred to withdraw from the central European bee-eater and opted for rapprochement with the Scandinavian monarchies. Albert I supported the Oslo Pact (1931) and the future Leopold III married a Swedish princess, Astrid, to seal this project. Today, in Germany, the idea of ​​a central-European confederation returns to the debates. These are the General e.r. Jochen LöSER and Ulrike SCHILLING, who drafted a first manifesto, aimed in fact at extending Austria’s neutral status to Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland and the Benelux States. This zone would ensure its defense by itself according to the Swiss model and the military theories elaborated by the French General BROSSOLET, by the former Austrian Chief of Staff Emil SPANOCCHI, by LöSER himself and by the polemologist Horst AFHELDT. The army would be lifted on the spot, the communes would be responsible for logistics and equipment stored at police stations or gendarmerie. Anti-tank missiles, type MILAN, would constitute the armament of the infantry, as well as anti-aircraft missiles, types SAM 7 or Stinger. These troops, in symbiosis with the population, would also have light tanks, types Scorpion or Wiesel (airport). The reorganization of the Central European armies would thus aim to transform the geopolitical heart of our continent into an impregnable fortress, to impulse the strategy of the “hedgehog” against which any opponent would bump. This strictly defensive logic runs up against Washington’s refusal and American ill-will because the obsession of the White House is to see the reconstitution of a semi-autarchic Europe, capable of doing without American, agricultural or industrial imports.

In the Balkans, rapprochement projects were sabotaged by Moscow in 1948, during the “titist” schism. TITO accepts the Marshall Plan and advocates national routes to socialism. It aims at grouping the Balkan States into an autonomous confederation modeled on Yugoslav federalism. The USSR feared above all the British intervention in this zone: this explains its hostility to Titism. Today, after the constant Romanian impulse of independence, Moscow seems ready to soften its position. Washington, on the other hand, sees with a very bad eye PAPANDREOU’s benevolence towards the project of Balkan confederation. Hence the anti-Greek propaganda orchestrated in the Western media.

France has known the “third way” Gaullist, has emphasized its sovereignty. This Gaullist option is out of favor today. To make it a reality, France should adopt the project of “parliament of the regions and professions” of some Gaullist circles, a mode of management that would bring the governed closer to the rulers in a more direct way than the current partitocracy (“The Band of the Five”, PEN included). This rapprochement would also make it possible to adopt the military system by “meshing the national territory”, recommended by BROSSOLET or COPEL. This system would transform the French territory into a fortress similar to the Swiss “Burg”. In addition, the young French conscripts would perform their military service near their homes and the entire territory would also be defended, avoiding the concentration of troops in Alsace and Lorraine. Because for France as for Europe, the danger no longer comes from the East but from the West. By taking note of this evidence, France inherits a new mission: that of being the guardian of the Atlantic seaboard of Europe. His navy has a vital European role to play. Its nuclear submarines will be the spearheads of European civilization, the swords of the new “jus publicum europaeum” against cultural, economic and military threats from Disneyland, Silicon Valley, Corn Belt and Pentagon. At the same time, France must resume its hovercraft and surface effect ship projects (“NES” and “Jet-foils”). These projects have been shamefully abandoned, while the Americans and the Soviets rely heavily on these weapons of the twenty-first century. France would thus deploy its submarines and its fleet and make the approach of its coasts impossible thanks to a “marine cavalry” of NES and hovercraft. The symbolic figure of the French fighter of tomorrow must absolutely become the soldier of the “Royal”, the submariner, the youngest of the sea, the marine-rider, the “missilist” of the NES. The military theorist of this revaluation of the role of the French navy is Admiral Antoine SANGUINETTI.

These are the premises of our “new HARMEL doctrine”. A doctrine which, like that elaborated by the Liège conservative in the 1960s, is based on a concept of Total Europe and seeks to detach Europeans (from both East and West) from their American and Soviet tutors. . This doctrine advocates inter-European dialogue and rejects the logic of the cold war. At the same time, it implies a diplomacy of the hand open to people who want, everywhere on the planet, to preserve their autonomy and their specificities. In conclusion: the harmonious collaboration between Europe and the “Third World” goes through the collapse of the status quo in Europe. By the death of Yalta.

What attitudes to take in Europe?

Faced with this courageous independence of Malagasy, Seychellois and Maldivians, what attitude should Europe take? The possible positive choices are diverse.
1. There is the so-called “Leftist Gaullist” option which remains exemplary even if, in France, Gaullist independence is indeed dead. The political writer who best expresses this option is Paul-Marie de la GORCE. He refers to the speech made by DE GAULLE in Pnom-Penh in 1966 and believes that France must position itself against the Empires, alongside the oppressed peoples. P.M. de la GORCE joins here the option of HAUSHOFER and the League of Oppressed Peoples. For Edmond JOUVE, advocate of the Euro-Arab dialogue, we must oppose a philosophy of the right of peoples to the individualist and Western philosophy of human rights. These two authors, located in the movement of “leftist Gaullism”, should serve as a reference in the development of our geostrategy.

2. There is the Swedish option, carried by Olof PALME, recently assassinated. Sweden has advocated non-alignment, established itself as an independent military industry, and championed the creation of “Peace Zones” in Europe. Unfortunately, this Swedish option, unlike the Gaullist option, has advanced its pawns under the disguise of the ideology Ireneist sixty-eight, decried and demonetized today. This policy pursued by PALME must now be analyzed beyond the manifestations of this outdated ideology and ultimately very silly. Behind the face of a PALME sporting the little hand of the One-Worldists of SOS-Racism (“Do not touch my friend”), you have to recognize and analyze your independence policy. PALME was looking for outlets for its industries in the Third World, so as to ensure their viability because other European countries refused to cooperate with the Swedes. We saw it at home with the “market of the century” where three planes were in the running to be in the Dutch, Belgian, Danish and Norwegian teams. A Swedish SAAB, a French Mirage and the American F-16. It is of course the latter who was chosen. If the Scandinavian and Benelux States had chosen the Swedish apparatus, it would have created in Europe an autonomous industry of military aeronautics. Today, SAAB can no longer compete with American firms that, thanks to this contract, have been able to finance an additional step in military electronics. To save the furniture, Sweden had to practice a very heavy taxation which gives the opportunity to the disgusting followers of selfish and anti-political liberalism to systematically denigrate Stockholm. When PALME and the Swedes spoke of “Peace Zones”, they wanted areas clear of Soviet and American influence where industries within these areas would collaborate with each other. For Swedes, Scandinavia or the Balkans could constitute such areas. Given the Swedish military policy, these areas should logically have given themselves a dissuasive military power and not vegetate in pacifist unrealism.

After 1945: the non-alignment

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%

The geopolitics of Haushofer

Independently of the fixed ideas of Hitler, the German geopolitics, impelled by Karl Ernst HAUSHOFER, sketch, between 1920 and 1941, a Eurasian continental project, that is to say an extension of the “jus publicum europaeum” to all the continental mass Eurasian and African. This “jus publicum europaeum”, defined by the jurist Carl SCHMITT, involves the creation of a space on which political differences between states are mitigated according to rules of courtesy, eliminating exterminating wills and posing the adversary as a temporary adversary and not an absolute opponent. The geopolitics of HAUSHOFER included the following three projects:
1) Management of the Pacific by Japan, according to the principle that an area of ​​economic co-prosperity must never be unified under the aegis of a power foreign to this space.
2) Alliance of Europeans with Turkish, Iranian, Afghan and Indian separatists, so as to enlarge the European security zone. With this project is born the idea of ​​an axis “Alexandrine”, starting from the Balkans to rush towards the Indus and even beyond. We will call it “diagonal” because this line starts from Iceland and crosses the Eurasian land mass diagonally, as it is perceived on a planisphere to the Mercator.
3) Formation of a Eurasian bloc centered on three pillars: Germany with its army and its fleet, constituted according to the rules of Tirpitz; the USSR as guardian of the heart of the landmass; Japan as organizer of the Pacific. This triple alliance is to create a Eurasian “Monroe Doctrine” against US interference in Europe and Asia.

For HAUSHOFER as for SCHMITT, this project aims at the constitution of a “nomos” Eurasian where Europe (Russia included) would practice a semi-autarky and self-centering economy, according to the criteria in force in the British Empire . A federalist on the scale of the great land mass, this project provides for the cultural autonomy of the peoples living there, according to the principles in force in Switzerland and in the USSR (which is, let us not forget, a confederation of states) . Even if in the USSR, the federal principle enshrined in the constitution and inherited from LENINE’s thinking has suffered deplorable sprains, of which the whole thing suffers, especially in terms of economic development. HAUSHOFER acts here in accordance with the wishes of the “League of Oppressed Peoples”, formed in Germany and Brussels in the early 20s. HAUSHOFER practiced, in his time, a “third-worldism” realistic and not misérabiliste, it is to say truly anti-colonialist. The “third world” of Westerners, Christians or laity, after 1945 hides, behind an insipid moralism, the will to impose on the peoples of Africa and Asia a status of neo-colonialism.

HAUSHOFER will come up against HITLER who wants the English alliance (“The English are Nordics”) and the colonization of Belarus and Ukraine (“Living Space for Germany”). This double choice of HITLER ruins the project of alliance with the Arab and Indian separatists and scuttles the Eurasian “Triplice”, with Germany, the USSR and Japan. While STALINE was a warm supporter of this solution. It is in these Hitlerian errors that we must perceive the reasons for the German defeat of 1945. ROOSEVELT, the great winner of 1945, had perfectly grasped the dynamics and sought to stop it. It pursued two goals: to defeat Germany and Japan, guardian powers of the oceanic facades (Atlantic and Pacific) and to eliminate the economic autonomy of the “Commonwealth”. Faced with the United States, Roosevelt hoped that only a USSR weakened by his war against Germany and von MANSTEIN’s tank divisions would remain.

The role of the United States in the history of this century is to prevent the creation of zones of economic co-prosperity. The war against Hitler and Nazism, the war against Japan confirm it. Immediately after the Second World War, the Cold War sought to put the USSR on its knees because it rejected the Marshall Plan jointly with the East European countries. Ipso facto, a sphere of Eastern European co-prosperity was born, which was shady in the United States. Faced with the EEC, another economic sphere more or less self-centered, the attitude of the United States will be ambiguous: it favors its creation so as to rationalize the implementation of the Marshall Plan but regularly worries about the “Gaullist” or “Bonaparto-Socialists” (the phrase is from the British economist Mary KALDOR). Currently, the economic war is in full swing between the United States and the EEC in the fields of steel and agricultural commodities. The new Cold War inaugurated by REAGAN aims to prevent a rapprochement between Eastern Europeans and Western Europeans, thus to reconnect with the Haushoferian tradition or with a more radical interpretation of the HARMEL Doctrine.

This synthesis between the Haushoférien geopolitical analysis, leftist Gaullism and Doctrine Harmel, we ardently hope that it is realized for the salvation of our peoples. We want a policy of systematic alliance with the peoples of Diagonale, which we mentioned above. The Indian Ocean must be freed from the American presence in the same way as Western Europe, which will reduce to nothing the psychosis of the encirclement that rages in the USSR and will therefore abandon this country to the disastrous implications of the Afghan adventure; thus, Moscow will be able to take care of its objective n ° 1: the profitability of Siberia.

The Japanese threat

As for the Japanese danger, it was the result of Japan’s acquisition, after the First World War, of Micronesia, previously German. In the middle of this immense Micronesia, was located the base of Guam, American since the conflict of 1898 between the United States and Spain. Between Guam and the Philippines, also American, the Japanese had built the naval base of Palau, close to the British outposts of New Guinea and the center of the Guam-Darwin triangle (in Australia) -Singapore. Since Japan wanted to create a vast area of ​​Asian co-prosperity, with the potential to encompass Indonesia and its oil fields that could feed the nascent Japanese industry, the British were rightly fearing a “yellow menace” on Australia and the conquest of the eastern facade of the Indian Ocean, less firmly guarded than the Afro-Arab facade.

But the threat to the British imperial equilibrium did not come only from Japanese or Italian actions, but also and especially from the national liberation movements that were organized in the Arab countries (and especially in Egypt) and in the countries of the world. ‘South East Asia. The English knew very well that the Germans (very popular with Arabs and Indians), Italians and Japanese would not have hesitated to actively support the revolts “anti-imperialist” even to use them as “Trojan horses “. And indeed, during the Second World War, Japanese and German recruited Indian legions or supported revolts like that of Iraqi officers in 1941.

“The Italian danger”

Italy becomes “dangerous”, in the eyes of England, from the moment it tries to undertake or undertakes the conquest of Ethiopia. By this conquest, it conferred a “hinterland” to its Somali colony and consolidated, in stride, its position on the Indian Ocean, operating a breakthrough in “arc” Port Elizabeth / Perth, equivalent to the German breakthrough in the Persian Gulf and in the Arabian Peninsula. Moreover, the Italian policy of domination of the Mediterranean threatens, in case of conflict, to cut the “route of India”, that is to say the line Gibraltar / Suez. This eventuality was England’s nightmare.

The German advance towards the Persian Gulf

The English perceived William II’s “oriental” policy as a threat to their hegemony in the Indian Ocean. This threat is embodied in the co-operative policy initiated between the Reich, which is industrializing and severely competing with England, and the Ottoman Empire. The military and economic agreements between the German Empire, born in Versailles in 1871, and the old Ottoman Empire, worn out by the Balkan wars and internal corruptions, allow the expanding Germanic industry to acquire ignoring French, English and American protectionism. The cooperation will be concretized by the project of construction of a railway line connecting Berlin to Constantinople, Constantinople to Baghdad and Baghdad to the Persian Gulf. This project, strictly economic, worries the English. Indeed, the emergence of a port in the Persian Gulf, which would fall partially under German control, would imply control by the German-Turkish axis of the Arabian Peninsula, then entirely under Ottoman rule. The Germans and Ottomans would thus pierce a “gap” in the English arch, connecting southern Africa with Perth in Australia. In addition, another weak point of the “arc”, Persia, hostile to the Russians and the English, may tip over into the German-Turkish camp. And this, especially as Germanophilia was making considerable progress in this country at the time. Lord CURZON will be the English politician who will do his utmost to torpedo the consolidation of a German-Turkish-Persian cooperation system.

For the Germanophile British, this German-Turkish collaboration was positive, because, thus, Germany was interposed between the British Empire and Russia, preventing at the same time any frontal collision between the two imperialisms. Turkey, weakened, nicknamed for some decades “the sick man of Europe”, no longer risked, once under the Germanic protection, falling like a ripe fruit in the basket of Russia.

Anglo-German litigation also took place in Africa. England will exchange Heligoland in the North Sea against Zanzibar, proving that the Indian Ocean was more important to him than Europe. This corroborates the theses of Homer LEA. When the Boer War broke out in southern Africa, Britain feared that an alliance between the Boers and the Germans would be forged, an alliance that would turn the whole of Central Africa and South Africa out of its sphere of influence. The hostility to South African independence and Rhodesian independence (from 1961 and 1965) stems from the fear of an autonomous assembly in southern Africa, which would shatter all ties with the Crown and would establish as a German-Dutch-Anglo-Saxon pole as rich and as attractive as the United States. In 1961 and 1965, the fears of England were already useless (the Empire was gradually slipping into oblivion); on the other hand, the United States has every interest in such a pole not being constituted because, pacified, it would attract a European immigration which would no longer enrich the New World.

But let’s go back to the dawn of the century. Offensive, the British diplomacy will force Germany to give up building the Iraqi railway beyond Basra, a locality located a hundred kilometers from the shores of the Persian Gulf. In addition, England imposes its private companies for the exploitation of the river lines on the Tigris and the Euphrates. Germany is allowed to play a role between the Bosphorus and Basra, but this role is limited; he is the one of a junior partner in tow of the British imperial locomotive. The analogy between this pre-1914 British policy and that of the United States today vis-à-vis Europe is similar.

The golden rule of the British strategy on the North Shore of the Indian Ocean can be summarized as follows: Germany must not cross the Port Said / Tehran line and Russia must not extend beyond the Tehran / Kabul line. This English policy is a policy of “containment” before the letter.

Dominating the Indian subcontinent involves dominating a maritime “triangle” whose three peaks are Seychelles, Mauritius and Diego Garcia. Homer LEA drew a remarkable map, showing us the “geostrategic” strengths of the Indian Ocean and the importance of this central “triangle”. Nothing has changed since then and the Americans know it well. The power that will become mistress of the three peaks of this triangle will dominate all the “Middle Sea”, in other words the Indian Ocean. And if, by chance, it was the USSR that came to dominate this “triangle” and to combine this maritime domination with the continental domination that it already exerts in Central Asia and Afghanistan, one can immediately imagine the profit it will be able to draw some.

Albion against the Empire of the Tsars

In the nineteenth century, Russia, which experienced a spectacular population explosion, began the conquest of Central Asia, populated by ethnic Turk (Tajiks, Turkmen, Uzbekhs, etc.). This Slavic advance towards the center of the Asian landmass responds to a desire to permanently prevent the Turkish-Mongol invasions that Russia suffered during our Middle Ages. But progressing along the Aral-Pamir axis, the Russian push will stop against the British possessions that block the road to the Indian Ocean. Indeed, Russia has been caressing for centuries the desire to own port facilities overlooking a “warm sea”. The two imperialisms will meet and clash (often by local ethnic groups) in Afghanistan. The scenario was partially repeated in 1978, when the American thalassocracy, supporting Pakistan and the anti-Soviet rebels of Afghanistan, opposed the USSR, supporting its strategy on certain Afghan ethnic groups and on the government. pro-Soviet official.

With these events spanning a few decades (from 1830 to 1880), Russia and England are becoming more aware of the region’s geopolitical issues. The British geopolitician Homer LEA realizes that the Indies really form the keystone of the British colonial system. He wrote: “Apart from a direct attack and a military conquest of the British Isles themselves, the loss of the Indies would be the most lethal blow to the British Empire.” Later, he will confirm this judgment and give it even more emphasis, stating that the Empire is an indivisible whole, the British Isles are just a few islands among others and the largest territorial mass, the the center of the colonial system is India. As a result, the loss of the Indies would be more serious than the loss of the British Isles.

The Indies allowed the British Empire to control the Russia that dominated (and still dominates) the Heartland – Siberian Middle-earth – and to control the Heartsea, the Middle Ocean which is the Indian Ocean located between the Atlantic and the Pacific. The control of the “Middle Ocean” makes it possible to contain the Russian continental power within the Siberian limits given to it by history. Russia, for its part, realizes that if India falls to it by conquest, by alliance or by chance, it will control Middle-earth and the Middle Ocean, and that it will become, ipso facto, the first power of the planet.

The geographical configuration of Afghanistan has allowed this country to escape outright annexation to one of the two Empires. In addition, Russians and English had an interest in a buffer state between their possessions. In Persia, local nationalism will emerge by deploying a double designation of enemies: the Russian who threatens the northern frontier and the Englishman who threatens the South with his fleet and the Southeast with his Indian army. It is no coincidence that Persian nationalism has always been a Germanophile and if today, Khomeini’s Muslim fundamentalism is also hostile to the Soviets and Americans who have taken over from the British.

The Pax Britannica

Arrived in the Indian Ocean in the middle of the seventeenth century, the English will gradually consolidate their positions and eventually make India the keystone of their colonial system, the most advanced that history has known. With the capitulation of France, which abandoned its Indian positions to England in 1763 (apart from a few comptoirs like Pondicherry), the British Crown could successively set foot in Singapore, Malacca, Aden, South Africa. In 1857, India came under direct colonial control and in 1877, Victoria was proclaimed Empress of India. England then continues its progression in East Africa (Kenya, Zanzibar).

France, in 1763, made a fatal error: it sacrificed its global potentialities in favor of a desire for hegemony in Germany. It neglected two assets: the one offered by the seafaring people of its Atlantic coasts, Bretons, Normans and Rochellois. And the one offered by its wooded hinterland (raw materials for building fleets) and its peasant masses (human reserves), then the most numerous in Europe.

It will therefore be the English who will occupy the periphery of the Indian Ocean. This occupation will imply the protection of the status quo against new enemies: the Russians, the Germans, the Italians and the Japanese.

Why choose the Indian Ocean?

Indeed, why this choice? Our reasons are threefold. They are first of historical order; the Indian Ocean has excited the greed of European imperialism and the 19th century “Anglo-centric” dynamic, with the predominance of the British Pound, is explained by the control of its waters by Great Britain. This dynamic was challenged by all the powers of the globe, which, ipso facto, spawned conflicts that culminated in the two world wars of the 20th century. Our current situation of colonized Europeans, is therefore partly due to imbalances that once affected the countries bathed by the Indian Ocean.

Second reason for our choice: the Indian Ocean is a microcosm of the planet because of the extreme diversity of populations living on its periphery. It is the space where the Hindu, Arab-Muslim, African and Far Eastern civilizations met and clashed. If one wishes to escape the sterilizing universalisms that want to reduce the world to the common denominator of consumerism and monotheism of values, the study of the confrontations and syncretisms that form the mosaic of the Indian Ocean is most instructive.

Third reason for our choice: to avoid a too European-centered reading of international political dynamics. The fate of Europe is currently being played out in all parts of the world and, given the mediocrity of the European political staff, the separatists of our continent, the free spirits, will naturally find a source of inspiration in the non-alignment previously advocated. by the Pandit Nehru, Soekarno, Mossadegh, Nasser, etc. The Indian diplomatic style is still inspired by Nehru’s principles of the 1950s. A non-aligned Europe will have as inevitable partner this India so concerned with its independence. Indian diplomacy thus proves to be pioneering and exemplary for European separatists who, one day, under the pressure of necessity, will shake off the American yoke and the Soviet yoke.