KWANG POON
Geopolitical Strategist
Once quizzed about whether India should align with Russia’s or USA’s interests with respect to the Ukraine war, Indian External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar rhetorically retorted: “How about India aligning with Indian interests?”
Recently, French President Emmanuel Macron and the EU have put forward the concept of “Strategic Autonomy” by underlining that “one should not follow the US blindly!”
What do these moves have in common and what is the underlying philosophy of these approaches?
In order to shed light upon this burning issue we have to take a quick incursion into International Relations Theory. To assist in visualisation, imagine a scale having at one end, Romanticism; and at the opposite end, Realism.
The Romantic School harks back to shared values and ancestry to justify special bonds between states. Some even go as far as qualifying such links as umbilical, evoking an image of a loving mother feeding and protecting her baby made from her own flesh and blood. Basically, the Romantics privilege emotional attachment as the primary basis for relationships.
On the other hand, the Realists base relationships on cold calculations and view bilateral exchanges mostly through a transactional standpoint.
Obviously, in real situations, both forces are at play concurrently and a country’s position lies somewhere in between these two extremes in the policy continuum. The posture is not static and may evolve in time as ‘the world keeps changing.’
Often, the official narrative tends to favour the Romantic viewpoint while actual deals are negotiated under wraps based on so-called ‘win-win’ principles. 
In real cases, both points of view come into play although one might argue that one approach is just the ‘cinq sous pour faire une roupie.’ Sometimes, the truth of the matter is captured by the diplomatic credo: “There are no permanent friends, only permanent interests.”
In the Realist School, a country is assumed to be a rational actor on the international stage and always acts to maximise its own interests.
“The Indian Way”
Let us take the case of India whose Foreign Policy is led by career diplomat Jaishankar who has taken the pains to write a whole book to justify and explain “The Indian Way.” In an OpEd in the Forum Page of ‘Le Mauricien’ of 28 July 2023, Dr (Mrs) Sheila Bunwaree extracted the gist of the New Foreign Policy of India by quoting generously from Jaishankar’s book. Thus, I refer the reader to the paper entitled “Diplomacy: Friendships, Values and Interests?”
Russia is the largest arms supplier to India and is also now one of its major oil suppliers since the start of the ‘military operation’ in Ukraine. As such, it is quite logical that India has abstained from UN Resolutions condemning Russia for its ‘invasion of Ukraine.’
Thus, India is a Realist, but despite close historical ties with Russia, it has not cut off ties with USA. On the contrary, based on the recent historical visit of Modi to the USA, one might even argue that India seems to be cozying up with the West. In fact, India is balancing the East and the West in terms of its Foreign Policy.
Similarly, the stance of French President Macron can be explained by the Realist Movement. Those who presumed that the special bonds between the people of White Race would prevail above all else have come to realise that this may not always be the case. The seesaw trajectory of the France-US ties is a case in point as I detailed in my article ‘Le Président Macron Met en Avant “l’Autonomie Stratégique” de la France.’
Coming back to Mauritius, the Agalega deal is a case study that lends itself well to an analysis based on the Romantic-Realist Framework. Again, the official narrative hammers home the ultra special bond between Mata Bharat and Chota Bharat. The Indian media is less Romantic and is not shy about talking about the quid pro quo involving the exchange of Agalega for the Metro Express.
In fact, the Indian media unabashedly reveals the geopolitical design of India to maintain control over its backyard of the Indian Ocean through its Neighborhood First Policy and the SAGAR initiative. During the official visit to Mauritius in February 2021, Jaishankar pointed out that “Mauritius is at the intersection of India’s Neigbourhood First, SAGAR and Forward Africa policies,” thus elevating our tiny island to an unprecedented stratospheric level in Indian diplomacy.
Over the past few years, the regular incursions of the Chinese Navy into the Indian Ocean have spooked India which had to come up with the Indian Necklace of Diamonds to counteract the Chinese String of Pearls.
The Chinese are already controlling or are vying to control the seaports at Gwadar, Hambantota, Chittagong, Kyaukphyu around India. These nodes on the BRI can be potentially militarised or at least serve as ‘support nodes’ in case of military conflict between the Dragon and the Elephant. Understandably, India has been trying hard to undo the influence of China.
Aware of the Chinese Achilles’ heel through the Malacca Dilemma, India is reinforcing the military installations at Andaman & Nicobar, and its presence at other islands around the Indian Ocean, including Agalega which is of particular interest. Historically, India has a strong diaspora presence in Eastern and Southern Africa which it is also leveraging in support of its strategic objective.
‘Leverage its geostrategic location’
Mauritius has already used up its joker which was clause 13 of the DTAT and Agalega in dealing with India. What else can Mauritius offer India?
To answer this question, we need to put the question the other way around? What is it that India does not want? Obviously, India does not want to see its grip over Mauritius get eroded by another superpower, probably China or possibly the USA.
What does China want from Mauritius, anyway? China would like Mauritius to officially join its Belt and Road Initiative. Towards the end of July 2023, Mr Liu Jianchao, Head of the International Department under the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China – a ministerial level post – officially visited Mauritius and the issue of the resumption of direct flights between Mauritius and China was raised. Mr Liu tenaciously expressed the ardent desire for Mauritius to sign the BRI MOU as a key step to ‘reinforce the China-Mauritius ties.’ The diplomatic hint was certainly not lost on keen observers.
Additionally, it is worth recalling that during the visit of Chinese President XI Jinping in 2018, he expressed the wish for Mauritius to ‘leverage its geostrategic location’ in the context of strengthening the Sino-Mauritian ties.
Given the rapid rise in trade between China and Africa and the geostrategic location of Mauritius along the major maritime trade routes linking Asia and Africa, Mauritius is considered a prime real estate on the New Maritime Silk Road.
The Indian side has persuaded Mauritius not to sign the BRI. India points to the case of Sri Lanka and Maldives which have allegedly fallen into the ‘Chinese Trap.’
India also underscores that the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) goes through the disputed territory of Jammu & Kashmir, without any consultation with India which also lays claim over these lands.
In reality, the China-Mauritius ties continue to survive, be it under other frameworks such as FOCAC, or perhaps under the newly minted GDI. However, the BRI is becoming a more and more conspicuous stumbling block for taking the relationship to the next level.
To explore a way out of this diplomatic quandary, it is worth examining the case of Djibouti. This small African state has a population slightly less than Mauritius and similarly enjoys a geostrategic location. Djibouti is right on the Bab al-Mandab Strait which is the gateway to the Red Sea, leading to the Suez Canal.
It is worth noting that Djibouti has succeeded in performing a remarkable balancing diplomatic act by simultaneously hosting the military bases of the USA, China, France, amongst others. It is reported that India and Russia have strong interest to set up a military presence as well.
In Mauritius, with the light at the end tunnel in sight for Chagos, the principle of maintaining the US military base appears undisputed and forms the sine qua non condition for the sovereignty handover. Assuming that Chagos remains a US base and Agalega is de facto an Indian base, what can Mauritius learn from Djibouti?
Before arriving at a full answer, it may be worth taking a brief look at another country which bears both similarities and differences with Mauritius. Singapore is another small island state with a diverse population consisting of mostly immigrants much like Mauritius. Unlike Mauritius where the majority of the population came from India, in Singapore, 75% of the population is of Chinese origin.
One could argue that due to the ‘ethnic and cultural affinity’ with China, Singapore would adopt a pro-Chinese stance in a similar way that Mauritius is so intimate with India. As a Realist, Singapore has always been more pro-USA and Singapore is no ‘Little China.’
The US has a ‘support node’ under the US Western Pacific Command Logistics Group in Sembawang and has a US ‘Training Air Squadron’ based at Paya Lebar Air Base. Again, we note the great lengths that the Singaporean authorities have gone to in applying obfuscating lexicology.
The current issue of ‘ration rice’ might prove another interesting case study to place along the Realist-Romantic Continuum.
Having looked at the standpoints of a number of countries through the Romantism-Realism Prism, we thus ask ourselves the billion-rupee question, what should the Foreign Policy of Mauritius be in the New Era of Multipolarity?
The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind. To quote the Father of the Economic Miracle, Sir Anerood Jugnauth, he wisely advised in his firebrand ‘pena kata kata’ style: “Na pa kapav met tou dizef dan enn panie !” Or, to borrow a page from Jaishankar’s book, should we not come up with “The Mauritius Way”?
