Thanks for your “costs” perspective on the maritime “protection”, I hadn’t considered that and I guess many everyday people wouldn’t have. But when I looked at the estimate for the diversion my mental mud-map of the world was thinking “15%, surely not”.
According to the US Naval Institute it’s around 33%:
If a container ship is sailing between a southern Chinese port to Rotterdam, the voyage would be 10,000 nm using the Suez Canal; the voyage would be 13,500 nm around the Cape of Good Hope. Depending on ship’s speed, this difference can mean 8 to 12 days additional time along the southern route.
I don’t know how much impact that has on prices, but I would never trust business lobby groups on what that cost is as imo, in general, they lie through their teeth.
The Simpsons' tiger-repelling rock is a slightly1 modernised version of the man repelling elephants by tearing up a newspaper and throwing the shreds out of the window. "But there are no elephants round here'" "Effective, isn't it?" Just saying.
I doubt that the USA, or even the UK for that matter, do a cost-benefit analysis on the use of naval power to secure shipping lines. The arrogance of being a super power, or the habits from being a former super power, outweighs the caution imposed by fiscal constraints. The US budget in particular is a disastrous bottomless pit. When the Pentagon sends out naval assets there is no thought given to the enormous cost and no assessment of any benefits, monetary or social. The US Washington prejudice is to go hard and leave the coatings to Senate committees. In the UK the government establishes a secret fund for military operations. This has little oversight and almost no accounting requirements.
Being a superpower the tendency is to do whatever it takes to achieve the mission objective. If this includes strong-arming allies to waste money on military adventures, then that is what is done. Australian governments fall for this all the time. From the Korean War, to the Malaysian “emergency”, to the mother of all bad decisions - the Vietnam War, to the TWO Gulf Wars and the Afghanistan, we wasted lives and money.
All military operations are a waste of money; but also a more wasteful loss of young lives. Safe global commerce that requires the sacrifice of lives and incurs such high social costs, is just not worth the deployment of armed forces. Going the long way is the better option. Maybe if countries stop bombing each other we can put military assets to better use, like building roads and infrastructure in less developed countries. Young people can be freed up to do worthwhile tasks and not be used as guards for the rich trading countries.
late to comment here, but fine article & argument. My immediate thought at time of US operation was why doesn't all shipping go around the Cape as some were already doing?
May your next article dig deeper into :
'Alternatively, the money could be spent at home, for example on repairs to America’s crumbling transport infrastructure system or on making its schools safe for children to attend. ', both in US and here at home and then hand deliver a copy to Labor/Marles/Albanese. Will chip in for shipping costs to get you to Canberra.
Based on a "cost–benefit test", Putin would be allowed to re-occupy all the countries that once formed the Soviet Union and to have hegemony over the old Eastern Bloc. Based on a "cost–benefit test", every western nation would pass laws that would jail anyone who criticises the Chinese Government. Based on a "cost–benefit test", laws would also need to be passed to ensure we don't offend ISIS and Al-Qaeda and other radical Islamist groups. Obviously people like Salman Rushdie, who has directly and indirectly caused almost $50 million in costs (according to one estimate I saw many years ago) would be extradited to Iran. I'm not sure I want to live in a world where the accountants are in charge.
Care to spell out these claims? Starting with Putin , it seems pretty clear that arming Ukraine has benefits to the democratic world that massively outweigh the costs, relative to the alternative of surrender. Russia's gigantic arsenal of tanks and armoured vehicles has been massively reduced, its professional army has lost maybe half its men, the Black Sea Fleet has been driven from the sea, and all for a total cost of maybe $100 billion. As regards the Ukrainians, its obvious that they believe the benefits of fighting back exceed the costs.
The rest of your claims rely on the assumption that freedom of ocean navigation is a fundamental value on the same level as freedom of speech, rather than a convenience to shippers. As I mentioned, we don't make this assumption wrt air or land transport. Why not?
My first thought on reading this (and I confess I’m more inclined to Noah’s view):
Does your logic hold if the threat to shipping is more than just a terrorist group with a specific location?
Surely if the world’s democracies shut down their navies, then less desirable parties would immediately engage in forms of piracy and other costly disruptions.
Quiggin's Rule of Surely It's a sure sign that you're not sure.
As the Somali episode showed, once shipowners hire armed security, piracy drops off. Using destroyers and aircraft carriers is like sending a Marine brigade to deter shoplifters.
And what if it involves inspections, confiscations, imprisonment of ‘rule breakers’ or whatever other measures they choose to make up?
For all its faults, the USA has sponsored free movement of ships around the world. But once that principle is compromised, it could lead to real trouble.
I think you have a point about considering the short term cost:benefits of fighting the Houthis. But I’m not so sure that it amounts to a death knell for the role of the US navy.
"nspections, confiscations, imprisonment of ‘rule breakers’"
The US Navy does a lot of this, setting its own rules.
On the first point, China doesn't need to: most of the trade in the SCS goes to or from Chinese ports - they can block it without a navy. Similarly Iran has limited reach. More generally, just go around as you would if there were a closed land broder
On your first question: it’s the distinction between a limited menace and something more systematic. Iran won’t invest heavily in controlling the high seas if the US navy can crush the value of that investment. Absent the US, who knows.
As for why, authoritarians like Xi do all sorts of counterproductive things in the pursuit of power. It’s not like his Taiwan ambitions are rational. He might seek to disrupt trade in specific ways simply to alter the power balance vs others, and would not care that the net effect would be heavily negative.
Hi John,
Thanks for your “costs” perspective on the maritime “protection”, I hadn’t considered that and I guess many everyday people wouldn’t have. But when I looked at the estimate for the diversion my mental mud-map of the world was thinking “15%, surely not”.
According to the US Naval Institute it’s around 33%:
If a container ship is sailing between a southern Chinese port to Rotterdam, the voyage would be 10,000 nm using the Suez Canal; the voyage would be 13,500 nm around the Cape of Good Hope. Depending on ship’s speed, this difference can mean 8 to 12 days additional time along the southern route.
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2021/may/suez-canal-and-global-trade-routes
I don’t know how much impact that has on prices, but I would never trust business lobby groups on what that cost is as imo, in general, they lie through their teeth.
The Simpsons' tiger-repelling rock is a slightly1 modernised version of the man repelling elephants by tearing up a newspaper and throwing the shreds out of the window. "But there are no elephants round here'" "Effective, isn't it?" Just saying.
I doubt that the USA, or even the UK for that matter, do a cost-benefit analysis on the use of naval power to secure shipping lines. The arrogance of being a super power, or the habits from being a former super power, outweighs the caution imposed by fiscal constraints. The US budget in particular is a disastrous bottomless pit. When the Pentagon sends out naval assets there is no thought given to the enormous cost and no assessment of any benefits, monetary or social. The US Washington prejudice is to go hard and leave the coatings to Senate committees. In the UK the government establishes a secret fund for military operations. This has little oversight and almost no accounting requirements.
Being a superpower the tendency is to do whatever it takes to achieve the mission objective. If this includes strong-arming allies to waste money on military adventures, then that is what is done. Australian governments fall for this all the time. From the Korean War, to the Malaysian “emergency”, to the mother of all bad decisions - the Vietnam War, to the TWO Gulf Wars and the Afghanistan, we wasted lives and money.
All military operations are a waste of money; but also a more wasteful loss of young lives. Safe global commerce that requires the sacrifice of lives and incurs such high social costs, is just not worth the deployment of armed forces. Going the long way is the better option. Maybe if countries stop bombing each other we can put military assets to better use, like building roads and infrastructure in less developed countries. Young people can be freed up to do worthwhile tasks and not be used as guards for the rich trading countries.
late to comment here, but fine article & argument. My immediate thought at time of US operation was why doesn't all shipping go around the Cape as some were already doing?
May your next article dig deeper into :
'Alternatively, the money could be spent at home, for example on repairs to America’s crumbling transport infrastructure system or on making its schools safe for children to attend. ', both in US and here at home and then hand deliver a copy to Labor/Marles/Albanese. Will chip in for shipping costs to get you to Canberra.
Based on a "cost–benefit test", Putin would be allowed to re-occupy all the countries that once formed the Soviet Union and to have hegemony over the old Eastern Bloc. Based on a "cost–benefit test", every western nation would pass laws that would jail anyone who criticises the Chinese Government. Based on a "cost–benefit test", laws would also need to be passed to ensure we don't offend ISIS and Al-Qaeda and other radical Islamist groups. Obviously people like Salman Rushdie, who has directly and indirectly caused almost $50 million in costs (according to one estimate I saw many years ago) would be extradited to Iran. I'm not sure I want to live in a world where the accountants are in charge.
Care to spell out these claims? Starting with Putin , it seems pretty clear that arming Ukraine has benefits to the democratic world that massively outweigh the costs, relative to the alternative of surrender. Russia's gigantic arsenal of tanks and armoured vehicles has been massively reduced, its professional army has lost maybe half its men, the Black Sea Fleet has been driven from the sea, and all for a total cost of maybe $100 billion. As regards the Ukrainians, its obvious that they believe the benefits of fighting back exceed the costs.
The rest of your claims rely on the assumption that freedom of ocean navigation is a fundamental value on the same level as freedom of speech, rather than a convenience to shippers. As I mentioned, we don't make this assumption wrt air or land transport. Why not?
My first thought on reading this (and I confess I’m more inclined to Noah’s view):
Does your logic hold if the threat to shipping is more than just a terrorist group with a specific location?
Surely if the world’s democracies shut down their navies, then less desirable parties would immediately engage in forms of piracy and other costly disruptions.
Quiggin's Rule of Surely It's a sure sign that you're not sure.
As the Somali episode showed, once shipowners hire armed security, piracy drops off. Using destroyers and aircraft carriers is like sending a Marine brigade to deter shoplifters.
But what if the piracy is run by Iran, or China?
And what if it involves inspections, confiscations, imprisonment of ‘rule breakers’ or whatever other measures they choose to make up?
For all its faults, the USA has sponsored free movement of ships around the world. But once that principle is compromised, it could lead to real trouble.
I think you have a point about considering the short term cost:benefits of fighting the Houthis. But I’m not so sure that it amounts to a death knell for the role of the US navy.
"nspections, confiscations, imprisonment of ‘rule breakers’"
The US Navy does a lot of this, setting its own rules.
On the first point, China doesn't need to: most of the trade in the SCS goes to or from Chinese ports - they can block it without a navy. Similarly Iran has limited reach. More generally, just go around as you would if there were a closed land broder
My suggestion about China is not about traffic in and out of Chinese ports.
It’s about any of the options available to them in the absence of the US navy. They could disrupt trade far and wide.
Perhaps Iran is the more likely immediate danger. They have limited reach precisely because the US navy would stomp on any attempt to over-reach.
More tiger-repelling rocks.
If the USN couldn;t deter Somali speedboats and Houthi drones, why should they deter Iran and China?
And why do you think Iran and China want to disrupt world trade? At least put forward some kind of idea on this.
On your first question: it’s the distinction between a limited menace and something more systematic. Iran won’t invest heavily in controlling the high seas if the US navy can crush the value of that investment. Absent the US, who knows.
As for why, authoritarians like Xi do all sorts of counterproductive things in the pursuit of power. It’s not like his Taiwan ambitions are rational. He might seek to disrupt trade in specific ways simply to alter the power balance vs others, and would not care that the net effect would be heavily negative.