The foundation of sea power (1)

The ability of any maritime nation, including Nigeria, to use the seas for transport and other civilian purposes such as fishing and more recently, exploitation of resources above or below the seabed has generated significant debate among naval thinkers. When one comes in contact with the word “sea power” for the first time, it may connote military strength at sea. This is not completely true because sea power has both a naval component and an economic aspect. It is an aggregate of the nation’s naval force and maritime industry.

It was Alfred Thayer Mahan who first coined the term “sea power,” after analysing a number of naval battles while at the US Naval War College. Mahan, an Admiral, naval strategist, and author of The Influence of Sea Power upon History argues that national prosperity and power depends on the control of the world’s sea-lanes. According to Mahan, whoever rules the waves rules the world; sea power is necessary to facilitate trade and peaceful commerce. In support of his views, he propounded six conditions that affect sea power namely: “An advantageous geographical position; serviceable coastlines, and abundant natural resources including a favourable climate; size of the territory; large population size to defend its territory; a society with an aptitude for the sea and commercial enterprise; and a government with the influence to dominate the sea.”

Towards the later part of the 19th century, after the appearance of Mahan’s greatest book, the New York Times had this to say:

“It has been said that naval strength has become at this day the right arm of diplomacy, and the most important element in large and critical foreign relations. A navy is necessary to a commercial power, and it is at once a promoter of and conservator of commerce. Without its support, foreign trade would languish, if not perish utterly. This truth is taught by all lessons of history, and its observance today becomes a prudent and wise nation.”

The above quote gives a sense to governments, and seafarers at least, that navies are uniquely established to defend trade. That is why when one looks deep into the sea power phenomenon, it does not only include a navy that rules the sea but also the peaceful commerce and shipping from which a naval fleet naturally and healthfully springs, and on which it securely rests.

From history, most developed nations were founded on sea power. The growth of American overseas possessions, the rise of the US Navy and the adoption of strategic principles upon which it operates are all influenced significantly by sea power. The British Empire was also won through sea power and the territory cannot be retained without it. But sea power as a dominant strategic identity and culture continues to be challenged by academics and naval scholars.

One of them, Paul Kennedy, argues that Britain’s loss of naval mastery was not due to its relative economic weakness compared to Americas but also to a relative decline in the potency of sea power itself in the new technological environment. Although, Kennedy touched on American nerve almost 30 years ago in his book The Rise and Fall of Great Powers, when he theorised that for a great power to remain truly great, it must perform a task which is simple to understand but difficult to execute. The task is that great powers must be able to balance wealth and their economic base with their military power and strategic commitments. Kennedy further reasoned that once a great power does not get the balance correctly, it becomes vulnerable to any country like China whose economy is fast expanding. But was Paul Kennedy right with the state of America’s economic status after 30 years of his thesis? Whichever way one sees Kennedy’s thesis, an important thing to note is that despite analytical rebuttals from critics, Mahan’s strategic theories have equally continue to influence newly emerging economies like India and China in their quest for sea power in the 21st century.

Today, sea power includes many aspects of a naval strength that did not exist in the last century – maritime industry and marine sciences. These industries now add to a maritime nation’s economy. A well-established theory for the economic advantage of a nation is to produce goods and services, and exchange them with other nations.

Throughout history, nations that have traded this way and conducted a strong foreign trade have prospered and grown in economic and political strength. Those that have failed in commerce have failed as world powers. If one recalls from the ancient times of Persia to the Japan of World War II, the loss of sea power has resulted in the failure of many nations. They failed because their sea power was not founded on trade.

The foundation of sea power is trade. When a nation is not seriously committed to trade within its continent and other parts of the world, sea power will be a weak component of its economic development. African countries like most other developing countries have raw materials, but are not seriously engaged in trade with each other. Perhaps, that is the reason why Africa with a population of over one billion people and France with a population of about 65 million have “about” the same GDP.

To service its intercontinental trade, Africa has to rely heavily on ships and ports. But, Africa’s ships and ports do not always match global trends and standard. Africa’s minimal integration in world trade within the context of sea power is as a result of inadequacies in its maritime sector, particularly in areas such as shipbuilding, human capacity, merchant and fishing fleet, and port facilities amongst others.

Although, Africa is a resource-rich continent, its growth in recent times has been recorded in commodities, services, and manufacturing. African nations want to engage each other and the world in trade. But some African nations are unable to reap immense political and economic benefits of being littoral states due to the fact that most of their exports are shipped. The case of Nigeria is very instructive. In the past three years (2015- 2018), Nigerian ship-owners have lost over US$ 25.3 billion paid to foreign ship-owners by importers and exporters as freight charges on goods, according to newspaper reports. (To continued).

 MA Johnson