Following the January 3 abduction of Venezuelan President, Nicolás Maduro, Donald Trump has brazenly flouted international law, rendering the United Nations (UN) – a global body that small nations like Mauritius rely on for justice – utterly irrelevant, much as Netanyahu and his allies have done since October 2023.

In Donald Trump’s eyes, the traditional global architecture, the "rules-based order" once managed by the UN, is a relic of a bygone era. In its place, he has crafted a new political order defined by muscular realism, in which a nation’s will and control over physical resources dictate the hierarchy of power. The “international community" is no longer a collection of equal partners governed by treaties, but a competitive landscape in which the United States must act as a sovereign CEO. The UN, in his eyes, is a bloated bureaucracy that hobbles American dominance. By bypassing it, he reinstates a Thucydidean reality.

He regards the abduction of the Venezuelan President not as a violation of the law but as an act of executive clarity. He views international institutions as "fund-guzzling bureaucracies" that serve only to constrain American power. By ignoring them, he believes he is restoring the natural order, in which the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. For a nation like Mauritius, which has fought for decades through international courts to reclaim the Chagos Archipelago, this shift is alarming – it undermines the very institutions that secured our 2019 International Court of Justice (ICJ) victory against colonial remnants.

Central to Trump's order is energy geopolitics. Influence stems not from ideals but from who controls the oil spigots. The Venezuela move isn't just about crude oil. It's a strike against China, aimed at eroding its investments and supply chains. In a zero-sum world, if Beijing falters, America surges. But for Mauritius, an Indian Ocean hub eyeing sustainable energy and blue economy growth, this resource-grab mentality threatens regional stability, potentially spilling into our waters amid rising Indo-Pacific tensions.

This ethos revives a "New Monroe Doctrine", treating the hemispheres as exclusive domains. Trump deems the arrest of a sovereign leader fair play if it safeguards dollar hegemony and curbs BRICS incursions. In our context, this raises fears: if the U.S. can snatch a president, what's to stop it from reneging on deals with small states like ours over strategic assets?

How has the World reacted?

As expected, the seizure has deepened geopolitical fractures. Critics, including Russia, Brazil, Iran and China, view it as a hostile violation of international law intended to protect dollar hegemony and fracture the BRICS alliance. While China has reportedly lost 70% of its non-U.S. oil supply from Venezuela, its technological and economic resilience has historically defied Western sanctions. Beijing’s strategy is built on institutional stability and infrastructure rather than individuals, anticipating geopolitical volatility through binding financial contracts. The notion of simply "confiscating" Chinese infrastructure is largely fictional. Over two decades, China built the operational core of Venezuela’s oil industry, integrating refinery technology and human capital that cannot be easily replaced. This crisis makes Venezuela a testing ground for U.S. efforts to roll back China’s footprint in the hemisphere.

Western media have been instructed to portray President Maduro's seizure as an "arrest" instead of an abduction, demonstrating political hypocrisy. Supporters see Donald Trump’s move as a calculated strategy to increase energy influence, taking advantage of China’s reliance on imports to alter global power dynamics. By focusing on Venezuela, the administration seeks to cancel billions of dollars in 'Belt and Road Initiative' investments throughout Latin America.

For island nations such as Mauritius, this highlights how fragile international law can be when power imbalances exist, increasing calls to protect sovereignty from such precedents.

What are the implications for Diego Garcia?

Donald Trump’s strategy regarding Diego Garcia isn't about a hostile British takeover; instead, it's a deliberate effort to maintain American military supremacy. Rather than seizing the territory outright, the Trump administration has chosen to solidify its influence through a comprehensive, century-long legal framework.

This “new order” was established on May 22, 2025, when Trump endorsed the UK-Mauritius Agreement. From his perspective, it represents a victory. Mauritius nominally retains sovereignty over Chagos, while the U.S.-UK base on Diego Garcia secures a 99-year lease, renewable for an additional 40 years – totalling 139 years of control. For Trump, it’s a way to shed the colonial legacy while maintaining strategic leverage, as discussed with UK Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, amid Indo-Pacific competition.

Yet, as of January 15, 2026, turbulence continues to mount. The UK's Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill, after a contentious third reading on January 12, has completed its Lords stages amid a regret motion criticising uncertainty over the base's future. Peers rebuked the "surrender deal", rejecting security amendments that fear Chinese influence on Mauritius – echoing Trump's "Pax Silica" doctrine, in which diplomatic complexity yields to ironclad U.S. control.

Trump’s current strategy is to accept complex diplomatic transitions so long as the United States maintains absolute operational control over the physical assets that matter. He hasn't seized the island from the British; he has ensured the British remain the landlords of a property that the U.S. will effectively occupy well into the 22nd century.

However, a counter-narrative is rapidly gaining momentum. Within the West Wing, a "security-first" faction, led by Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, whispers that the deal is a strategic trap. They argue that ceding sovereignty to Mauritius is a gift to Beijing, potentially allowing Chinese surveillance to move within striking distance of the base. For a President who views the world through the lens of countering China, this "national security" argument is the most likely catalyst for a sudden pivot.

Therefore, it comes as no surprise amid the recent shift in U.S. rhetoric. Frustrated by the UK's response to Trump's ambitions regarding Greenland, the U.S. critique of the Chagos Islands deal appears to stem from broader geopolitical issues rather than specific concerns about the agreement itself. Trump's focus on territorial control as a strategy to counter rivals like China and Russia complicates diplomatic relations with the UK. These ongoing tensions threaten essential security collaborations, underscoring the need for a nuanced approach to preserve enduring partnerships amid external pressures.

For Mauritius, this scenario underscores our vulnerability in a world dominated by superpowers, where agreements can be easily influenced by shifting political winds. If Trump views the agreement as a "debt", the status of Diego Garcia could be jeopardised, further delaying the resettlement of the Chagossians and hindering our economic development plans. As the bill returns to the Commons, we await the outcome – will multilateral efforts prevail, or will the aggressive realism of superpowers eclipse our aspirations for the archipelago?

Prof Reetoo Banarsee,

Emeritus Professor of Public Health/

Public Health Consultant