The Neo-Colonial Chessboard: How Western Powers Exploit Indian Ocean Islands for Imperial Dominance

Introduction: The Shifting Geometry of Power

For centuries, geopolitics equated power with vast landmasses, where empires expanded through territorial conquest and industrialization. However, the 21st century has witnessed a profound transformation in how global influence is projected and maintained. The Indian Ocean, once merely a maritime highway, has emerged as the epicenter of a new strategic paradigm where small islands and micro-territories—some sovereign, some leased, some disputed—are no longer peripheral dots on the map. Instead, they have become critical platforms in a complex security and logistics network. These territories now serve as surveillance hubs, fueling stations, air operations centers, submarine cable protection points, and crisis response bases. In this age of persistent presence, islands function as fixed aircraft carriers—immovable yet indispensable assets that defy their minuscule size. This article examines how Diego Garcia, Djibouti, the Maldives, and Assumption Island exemplify this shift, exposing the neo-colonial practices that undermine the sovereignty of Global South nations.

Diego Garcia: Sovereignty Sacrificed for Imperial Convenience

The Chagos Archipelago, particularly Diego Garcia, stands as a stark symbol of how Western powers manipulate sovereignty for strategic gain. The 2025 UK-Mauritius agreement formally acknowledges Mauritian sovereignty over Chagos while allowing the UK to maintain control and use of Diego Garcia under a long-term arrangement that safeguards the operations of the US military base. This diplomatic maneuver represents a geopolitical paradox where official sovereignty is traded for informal control. The island’s geographic utility—enabling power projection, long-range missions, and continuity in the Indo-Pacific—elevates it beyond a mere legal dispute. UK parliamentary analyses frame the deal as resolving an old sovereignty conflict while ensuring the base’s survival, but this masks the ongoing injustice faced by displaced Chagossians, whose right to return remains compromised. The financial terms of the agreement, coupled with public reaffirmations of the base’s strategic relevance by US and UK leaders, reveal a cold calculus: territory is negotiable, but logistics are sacrosanct. This episode underscores how Western nations prioritize military access over human rights and self-determination.

Djibouti: The Perils of Strategic Density

Djibouti epitomizes the concept of strategic density, where a small nation transforms into a global security hub due to its proximity to the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, one of the world’s busiest maritime junctions. Hosting military bases from the US, China, France, Japan, and others, Djibouti leverages its geography for economic gain, with base-related revenues estimated at hundreds of millions of dollars annually. However, this density breeds risk: the close proximity of rival powers increases the potential for miscalculation, from airspace accidents to intelligence misinterpretations. Djibouti’s dilemma is structural—it reaps economic benefits while becoming a potential flashpoint in great-power confrontations. This situation highlights how small states are coerced into dependency, where their sovereignty is eroded by the very powers claiming to protect it. The West’s military footprint here is not about stability but about maintaining a neo-colonial grip on critical chokepoints.

The Maldives: Economic Leverage as Strategic Influence

The Maldives demonstrates a subtler form of power projection, where influence is exerted through economic means rather than overt militarization. Its location along key sea routes connecting the Arabian Sea, Bay of Bengal, and Gulf of Aden makes its alliances valuable. China’s infrastructure projects, such as the China-Maldives Friendship Bridge and the China-Maldives Free Trade Agreement effective from January 1, 2025, illustrate how economic investments create strategic gravity. India, too, has intensified engagement through financial assistance and trade negotiations. This economic orientation shows that islands can become platforms of power without visible militarization, through supply chains, debt exposure, and digital infrastructure. Yet, this dynamic often traps small nations in debt diplomacy, where their policies are swayed by external economic pressures—a modern form of coercion that echoes colonial-era exploitation.

Assumption Island: Domestic Politics and Sovereignty Assertions

The case of Assumption Island in Seychelles reveals the limits of militarization in small states. A 2018 agreement for Indian naval infrastructure faced domestic opposition and political hurdles, leading Seychelles to reconsider its initial commitments. This illustrates that micro-territories are not passive chessboards; they can veto, delay, or renegotiate deals based on popular legitimacy and sovereignty concerns. It is a powerful reminder that small states retain agency, resisting external pressures to preserve their autonomy. This resistance is a blow against neo-imperial designs, showing that the Global South will not silently accept becoming pawns in great-power games.

The Broader Implications: A Networked Maritime Nervous System

Collectively, these examples signal a shift toward a distributed network of maritime nodes—a “maritime nervous system” that enables rapid deployment, logistics support, intelligence surveillance, and crisis response. This network prioritizes continuity in a volatile domain, where islands embedded in long-term infrastructure provide the permanence strategists crave. However, this order is fraught with risks: increased militarization escalates the potential for incidents, sovereignty arrangements remain contested, and small states face coercion during crises. The Indian Ocean is now a contentious architectural space where energy flows, undersea cables, and alliance structures intersect, with islands serving as leverage points. The next strategic surprise may emanate from an overlooked atoll where a lease renegotiation or domestic protest alters the balance of power.

Opinion: Condemning Western Hypocrisy and Upholding Global South Sovereignty

The transformation of the Indian Ocean into a strategic battleground is not a neutral geopolitical evolution; it is a manifestation of enduring imperialist ambitions, particularly by Western powers led by the US and UK. The treatment of Diego Garcia is a glaring example of neo-colonial injustice, where the rights of Chagossians are sacrificed for military convenience. The West’s rhetoric of a “rules-based order” rings hollow when it selectively applies international law to suit its interests. Similarly, Djibouti’s predicament reveals how small nations are forced into dependency, their sovereignty compromised by the very powers that preach democratic values. The Maldives and Assumption Island cases, while showing agency, also highlight the economic and political pressures faced by Global South states. It is imperative to reject this neo-colonial framework and advocate for a multipolar world where civilizational states like India and China can chart their own paths, free from Western coercion. The struggle for decolonization continues, and we must stand with small nations asserting their sovereignty against imperialist designs. The Indian Ocean’s islands are not leverage for external powers—they are homelands with inherent rights that must be respected.