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.
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.
By placing ourselves outside the left / right dichotomy, which sterilizes political analyzes and often robs them of all seriousness, we carefully follow the work of organizations, cenacles, thought societies, etc. who pose the object of their investigations the relations between our Europe and the countries of the “Third World”. Beyond the aforementioned dichotomy, we have, without a priori, studied the works published by Editions La Découverte, those of CEDETIM, La Revue Nouvelle (Brussels), Le Monde Diplomatique, writers, sociologists, philosophers or journalists like Yves LACOSTE, Alain de BENOIST, Guillaume FAYE, Rudolf WENDORFF, Paul-Marie de la GORCE, Claude JULIEN, etc. In a real concern for eclecticism, we have combined these contemporary investigations with the works of geopoliticians of yesterday and today.
Studying relations between Europe and the Third World carries a major risk: that of dispersion. Indeed, behind the term “Third World”, lies a tremendous diversity of cultures, religions, political universes, sensibilities. The term “Third World” encompasses civilizational spaces as diverse and heterogeneous as Africa, Latin America, Chinese Asia, Indo-China, Indonesia, the periphery of the Indian Ocean, the Arab-Muslim world (the Islams “, would say Yves LACOSTE). The term “Third World” thus covers an extreme diversity. In strictly economic terms, this diversity already includes four categories of countries: 1) poor countries (especially those in the Sahel); 2) the countries whose only wealth is the raw materials of their subsoil; 3) oil-producing countries with a certain standard of living; 4) poor countries with an autonomous military power, with nuclear weapons (India, for example).