À Maurice, les dépenses publiques (+20,5 %) ont progressé plus vite que les recettes (+15,7 %) en 2024-2025. Résultat : un déficit de 10,6 % du PIB et une dette des administrations publiques de Rs 570,5 milliards, soit 79,6 % du PIB.

On attends toujours ta réaction à cette barbarie. Prends ton temps, on est pas pressé.

À quoi ressemble un génocide dans les chiffres — et à quoi il ne ressemble pas.

Très bon Jeudi Saint.

· On the night of March 19–20, 2026, Iran launched two ballistic missiles towards Diego Garcia, in the Chagos Archipelago. A major escalation… that has largely flown under the radar. · The Mauritian government reacted by publishing an official communiqué, expressing its “utmost concern” and condemning what it described as a “grave violation of international law.” · Port Louis also called for an immediate de-escalation, stressing that rising tensions threaten peace, security, and stability in the Indian Ocean. · Why is Diego Garcia so strategic? Because it hosts a key U.S. military base, used for operations in the Middle East and Asia. A critical node in Western military power projection. · By targeting Diego Garcia—even symbolically—Tehran is sending a clear message: no U.S. strategic asset is out of reach and tensions are no longer confined to the Middle East · For Mauritius, the situation is complex. The country claims sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago, yet the base remains under U.S.-U.K. control. This incident revives a sensitive question: who controls—and protects—what? · Middle East tensions are now spilling over far beyond the region. The Indian Ocean is increasingly becoming a theatre of indirect confrontation. · Another key signal: Iran is testing red lines without triggering full-scale war. A strategy of “peripheral pressure” — projecting power while avoiding direct confrontation. · Immediate risks: - Increased militarisation of the Indian Ocean - Strengthening of military alliances - Growing diplomatic pressure on regional states, including Mauritius · Medium-term implications: - Intensifying great power rivalry (U.S., China, India) - Strategic reshaping of maritime routes - Expansion of military presence across the region · Mauritius calls for dialogue and respect for sovereignty. But one question remains: can neutrality survive in an increasingly strategic battleground? · What we are witnessing may go far beyond an isolated incident. It could signal a deeper shift:the Indian Ocean emerging as a new global geopolitical front.

· Starting May 1st, China will scrap all tariffs on imports from 53 African countries. That’s practically the entire continent. This is not just trade policy. It’s geopolitics. · Countries included: South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, Egypt, Morocco, Mauritius, Ghana, Ethiopia, Tanzania… 53 out of 54 African nations. A sweeping, continent-wide economic signal from Beijing. · This move didn’t happen in a vacuum. The US is moving in the opposite direction: imposing tariffs on some African goods and leaving the future of AGOA uncertain. A 25-year trade framework is now hanging by a thread. · China saw the opening — and moved fast. Trade between China and Africa hit nearly $350 billion last year. A record. · But here’s the imbalance: Africa runs a $102 billion trade deficit with China. The continent imports far more than it exports. · So why remove tariffs? Beijing is betting on: boosting African exports to China, deepening economic dependence and locking in long-term influence. · This is soft power through trade. Lower barriers today = stronger political and economic alignment tomorrow. · For African countries, this is both: an opportunity (market access) and a risk (structural dependency). · The bigger picture: a silent shift is underway. As the US hesitates, China is positioning itself as Africa’s primary economic partner. · Trade policy is no longer just about economics. It’s about shaping the future balance of power — and Africa is right at the center of it. #ChinaAfrica #Geopolitics #GlobalTrade #Africa #USChina #GeoEconomics #AfricanEconomy #TradePolicy #AGOA

· The UK High Court has rejected a legal challenge against the UK–Mauritius agreement on the Chagos Archipelago — a key development in one of the longest-running decolonization disputes in the Indian Ocean. · The agreement would see the UK transfer sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius while leasing back the strategic Diego Garcia base to the UK and US for 99 years. · Opponents of the deal, including Chagossian claimant Bertrice Pompe, argued that the agreement was reached without proper consultation with the Chagossian community. · However, Justice Mary Stacey ruled that the legal arguments raised had already been considered and rejected in previous English court cases. · In short: the High Court found no new legal basis to reopen the issue. · The decision removes, for now, a potential legal obstacle to the implementation of the UK–Mauritius deal. · The controversy is far from over. Critics in the UK and the US — including former US President Donald Trump — have questioned the agreement and its implications for the strategic Diego Garcia base. · But legally speaking, London’s courts have once again reaffirmed the UK government's authority to proceed with the arrangement. · For Mauritius, this ruling strengthens the path toward restoring sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago after decades of dispute. · Yet the broader geopolitical and humanitarian debates around Chagos — sovereignty, military strategy, and the rights of displaced Chagossians — are unlikely to disappear anytime soon.

· On Feb 27, 2026, Mauritius suspended diplomatic relations with the Maldives after Male refused to recognize Mauritian sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago. · The dispute stems from the 2025 UK–Mauritius agreement: London agreed to transfer sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius while leasing back the strategic Diego Garcia base to the UK and US for 99 years. · This deal was supposed to close a long colonial chapter. Instead, it has opened a new geopolitical front in the Indian Ocean. · The turning point came when Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu reversed the policy of his predecessor and withdrew recognition of Mauritian sovereignty over Chagos. · Muizzu argues the UK–Mauritius deal ignores Maldivian interests and overlaps with maritime zones that the Maldives considers part of its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). · The dispute is not only political — it is maritime and strategic. Control of EEZ boundaries means access to fisheries, seabed resources, and influence over major sea lanes. · Ironically, earlier legal developments appeared to favor Mauritius. Between 2021 and 2023, international maritime rulings used Mauritius as the relevant coastal state when delimiting boundaries near Chagos. · The Maldives now rejects those interpretations and is preparing legal options that could include challenging the Chagos settlement before international courts. · On the ground, tensions are rising. Reports indicate the Maldives has increased coast guard patrols and drone surveillance in waters linked to the disputed maritime zones. · Mauritius responded forcefully. By suspending diplomatic relations, Port Louis signaled that the Maldivian position — denying Mauritian sovereignty over Chagos — is unacceptable. · This diplomatic rupture adds new uncertainty to a deal already under scrutiny internationally. The stakes are bigger than a bilateral dispute. The Chagos Archipelago hosts Diego Garcia, one of the most important US military bases in the Indo-Pacific. · Regional actors are watching closely. India, which supports Mauritian sovereignty over Chagos, is concerned about rising tensions in its maritime neighborhood. · Whether such a challenge materializes remains uncertain. But the diplomatic clash has clearly complicated the final settlement of the Chagos question. For Mauritius, the issue is about decolonization and sovereignty. For the Maldives, it is about maritime rights and regional influence.

· The Raisina Dialoguewrapped up its 2026 edition in New Delhi this week. Often called India’s Davos of geopolitics, the forum brings together ministers, strategists and security officials from across the world. But one theme stood out this year: the future of the Indian Ocean. · The Indian Ocean is rapidly becoming one of the most strategic regions on Earth. It’s because it connects the world’s most critical trade corridors: Middle East energy exports, Asian manufacturing supply chains and European and African markets. In fact, nearly 80% of global seaborne oil trade passes through this ocean. · For India, the stakes are existential. About 90% of India’s trade by volume moves by sea. Control and stability in the Indian Ocean are therefore central to India’s security, economy, and geopolitical strategy. · At Raisina 2026, leaders from India, Australia, Sri Lanka, Mauritius and Seychelles discussed a central question: Can the Indian Ocean remain open, rules-based, and stable in an era of intensifying great power competition? The answer is far from certain. · Over the past decade, the region has seen a steady militarization. Major powers are expanding their presence: the US maintains bases such as Diego Garcia, China is expanding port access and naval reach and India is increasing maritime surveillance and partnerships. · Much of the debate focused on international maritime law, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. UNCLOS remains the legal backbone governing navigation, maritime boundaries and resource rights. Smaller states see it as their primary protection against great power coercion. · Another major theme was the “Blue Economy.” Countries in the region want to develop sustainable fisheries, marine energy, seabed resources and maritime tourism. But doing so requires stable sea lanes and cooperative governance. · That is why regional frameworks were repeatedly highlighted: the Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA), the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi‑Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) and the Colombo Security Conclave. These mechanisms aim to coordinate security, trade, and maritime governance. · But the deeper strategic question remains: Will the Indian Ocean become a zone of cooperation or another arena of great power rivalry? The region sits directly between two major geopolitical theaters: the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific. · China’s growing maritime footprint is one of the central concerns. Through its “string of pearls” network of ports and logistics hubs, Beijing is steadily increasing its presence across the Indian Ocean. For India, this is both an economic and strategic challenge. · At the same time, the Indian Ocean is increasingly exposed to global shocks: disruptions in the Red Sea, tensions around the Strait of Hormuz, piracy and maritime security threats and climate risks affecting coastal economies. These pressures make regional cooperation more urgent. · One positive signal discussed at Raisina: connectivity recovery and trade resilience after years of pandemic and supply chain disruptions. Many regional states are diversifying trade routes and strengthening port infrastructure. The goal: make supply chains harder to disrupt. · For smaller island states like Mauritiusand Seychelles, the stakes are particularly high. Their economies depend on: maritime trade, fisheries, tourism, stable sea lanes. They are also increasingly active diplomatic players in regional security debates. · The bigger takeaway from Raisina Dialogue 2026: The Indian Ocean is no longer a quiet strategic backwater. It is becoming one of the central arenas of 21st-century geopolitics. Energy routes, naval power, trade flows and international law all converge here. · If the 20th century was shaped by the Atlantic and and the early 21st century by the Pacific, the next geopolitical frontier may well be the Indian Ocean. And the debates at Raisina suggest the competition for its future has already begun.

· The US just announced a $20B insurance backstop for oil tankers crossing the Strait of Hormuz. At first glance, it looks like a technical financial move. In reality, it reveals something deeper about how global trade and geopolitics actually work. · The Strait of Hormuz is the most important energy chokepoint on Earth.Every day, roughly: 20% of global oil consumption and 20% of global LNG exports pass through this narrow corridor between Iran and the Gulf. If Hormuz stops, the global economy feels it immediately. · Right now, tanker traffic has nearly collapsed. Normally around 100+ ships cross the strait daily. Last week: only about 19 vessels made the passage. That’s an 80%+ drop in maritime traffic. But here’s the key point: Iran didn’t formally close the Strait. · The shutdown came from risk markets. When war risk surged after US and Israeli strikes on Iran, maritime insurers withdrew coverage. And in global shipping there is a simple rule: No insurance → no sailing. · A modern oil tanker can be worth $100M–$200M. No shipping company will send that vessel into a war zone without coverage. So when insurers and reinsurers pull out, trade stops even if the waterway remains physically open. In practice, insurance markets can close a strait without firing a shot. · This is why the Trump administration launched a $20B reinsurance program through the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation. The goal is simple: Restore confidence so tankers return to Hormuz. The US is effectively becoming the insurer of last resort for global energy shipping. · But analysts warn that insurance is not the only problem. As shipping expert Matt Wright told CNBC, shipowners are primarily worried about physical security. Several tankers have already been attacked since the escalation with Iran. Insurance can offset financial risk. It cannot stop missiles or drones. · The geopolitical consequences are enormous. If Hormuz traffic remains disrupted, three players are immediately affected: Iran, China, and the Gulf oil producers. Each for different reasons. · For Iran, the situation is paradoxical. Almost all Iranian oil exports pass through Hormuz. If shipping collapses, Iran’s own oil revenue disappears. The “oil weapon” risks hurting Tehran as much as its rivals. · For China, the exposure is even larger. Beijing relies heavily on Gulf energy: ~40% of Chinese crude imports transit Hormuz and most Iranian oil exports ultimately go to China. A prolonged disruption would shake China’s energy security. · Then there are the Gulf states: Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait and Iraq. Together they export millions of barrels per day through Hormuz. There are very few alternative routes. If the strait freezes, the global energy system tightens overnight. · But the most interesting lesson here is structural. We tend to think geopolitics is controlled by: presidents, navies and missiles. Yet sometimes the real gatekeepers are financial systems. · About 90% of global shipping is insured through a handful of maritime insurance clubs, backed by reinsurance markets largely concentrated in London. When those markets decide the risk is too high: Ships stop moving. No blockade required. · That’s why the US had to intervene. Without insurance coverage, global energy trade simply halts, regardless of naval power. The Strait of Hormuz wasn’t closed by warships. It was closed by risk models. · The deeper lesson of this crisis: Modern geopolitics is not controlled only by states. It is shaped by systems : Energy systems, Insurance systems and Financial systems. Missiles create headlines. But sometimes, actuaries decide what actually moves across the world’s oceans. #IranWar