24
votes
We might need to say goodbye to the global ‘conveyor belt’ based on free passage through peaceful waters
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- We got too accustomed to peaceful seas
- Authors
- Rachel Premack
- Published
- Jan 10 2024
- Word count
- 1718 words
I'm not really sure the article makes a lot of sense or justifies its thesis.
???
What are the other poles, and why do they want to disrupt global shipping? At best, you can argue that China is the second pole, but why on earth would they want trade in the red sea disrupted? They are an export powerhouse, after all.
Russia or Iran is the closest "power" that might want some trade disrupted? I mean, calling Iran a "power", let alone a pole of geopolitics, is a bit of a stretch when they're not even the dominant force in the middle east. Ditto for Russia.
It's not the first time pirates disrupt global trade; Somali pirates were famous for a while for that reason. Trade is still humming along, if slightly more inefficient having to go around Africa, even with the Houthis. I don't particularly see a reason why this would be anymore of a long term incident than anything else that's happening the in last 50 years.
The last part of the article then describes exactly how every geopolitical power would very much like sea trade to continue, including Iran! Which seems to obliterate their own thesis.
??? Who is the second naval power projecting power over global sea trade? Is it the Houthis lol? Even if you want to try to make the multipolar argument, all the potential pole candidates still want unfettered sea trade...
The article is weak but this isn't the first time I'm seeing this discussion. There's a couple of shipping chokepoints around the world and more and more countries are decided it's important to be able to shut those down or defend them from those who would, and if you're already doing that, why let your enemies through.
As the Houthis have demonstrated you can have a MAJOR impact on the global economy with very few resources, and they're not the only country to take notice of this.
There's about 7 or 8 major shipping chokepoints in the world, and now that globalism is starting to show its flaws (which were extremely obvious from the beginning) countries are trying to prepare for the worst case where a rival decides their ships aren't going through anymore.
One of the interesting things about it is that this benefits nations which aren't as developed. The US can't just shut down a canal/straight as too much of their own economy is based on ships getting through in time, but if you're some small nation that doesn't have that kind of economy anyways' its a ripe target.
This is one of the many reasons Israel is strategically important. Large economies like the US and Europe NEED a military presence in the area (since there's 5 major choke points), and obviously don't have a lot of friends who are willing to support a military base.
I don't know if globalism is showing its flaws per say. In fact, you might argue that it's been a pretty stabilizing force.
Prior to globalization, we had large wars between major powers all the time. A lot of these wars were over some fairly petty squabbles.
Our current system has made it tough to do that. Sure, smaller and less powerful countries suffer because they're still being invaded regularly, but that was happening pre-globalization too and it was arguably even worse.
These days, powerful nations go to "war" with computers and economies - with the occasional proxy war popping up from time to time.
I think that without the level of globalization we have now, we would have bigger problems.
Yeah you’re totally right, I’m just ruffled because the amount of “no it’s fine to outsource important things because it would be economically irrational to defect” conversations I’ve had.
You've got a point there. Seems like semiconductors and other important goods should be made in-house at the very least.
Being dependent on other countries for important things is a vulnerability no matter how you look at it. I'll give you that.
The USA sends all manufacturing to China and then acts surprised that China is an economic superpower 30 years later.
I think the surprise was more that the government never shifted away from communist totalitarianism like they did the economic side in of things.
Its because the communism and the totalitarianism are somewhat seperate, unrelated things. Much how the USA does not support democracy and liberty as much as they like to pretend to.
There is also something to be said for China, in that they are one of the only old civilizations that never really 'fell' in the same way that say the Romans did. It's not an inherintly good or bad thing, but it does indicate some sort of unique cultural trait that other cultures do not have.
But anyway, once despots are in power, they tend to hold onto it via any means neccessary. The odds of a non-totalitarian system evolving peacefully is virtually nil. And that's as true for China and Russia as it is for the USA (if things continue as-is).
Based purely on the economy of commerce I don't disagree, but I'd offer that in practice, the gross amount of suffering/chaos caused by the disruption of globalization is more linked to self-sufficiency than it is to developed status.
As an example, almost no fertilizer is made in Africa - and Africa also imports massive amounts of food. So while the African countries are among the least developed worldwide, and from a commerce perspective, their économies are disrupted less when shipping falters (because there's not much to disrupt), the amount of suffering is much greater than it is for, say, France, which is reasonably self-sufficient.
Yemen, too, imports nearly all of its food.
If global shipping stopped overnight, the economy of the United States would tank, no question. But no Americans would starve to death.
The same cannot be said for much of the rest of the world.
There's a reason why the US subsidizes its farmers/agricultural conglomerates. Food security is national security.
IMHO, so is a robust ecosystem of machining technical skills and manufacturing, but that ship has largely sailed.
Thats why if Panama were to ever to shut down the canal for one reason or another they would get some Freedom Drones deployed in short order.
I hope those freedom drones can bring the rains, because it's drought that's blocking the Panama Canal.
That's already happened within the last 40 years, though with Marines rather than drones.
Panama Canal is currently at risk though. It relies on fresh water supplies to make the locks work and water is becoming more scarce.
Yes my commentary was irrespective of weather-induced blockage and more to do with geopolitical blockage.
However, I feel global trade should largely be reserved for things that are nonperishable, where doesn't matter if it takes 2 weeks or 2 years to get to the destination. This kind of weather-induced disruption is going to only become more frequent....it's time to be building up local-first supply chains agaim.
I'm not precisely in agreement with the article. However, The Houthis as combatants are not precisely pirates. They have an ideological position.
Can/will the US and Europe suppress the Houthis and return to the status quo ante, or is conquering them too expensive?
What I have read of past wars includes blockades and shipping disruption. It's worth thinking about these trends and possibilities.
It seems like drone and missile technology is making certain military acts cheaper and more accessible to local rather than global powers.
Their ideology is in part death to America. The entire premise of the global economy depends on safe shipping, there should be zero doubt that Europe and the USA want to keep the status quo.
I wasn't clear. I don't agree with or support their ideology. I am American and I have opposed Islamic extremism since I became aware of Iran in 79.
The military geopolitical decision makers will have to choose how much to spend in opposition to these people and whether they have competing interests in keeping the military free to handle other issues that might come up.
Sunni Saudi Arabia has been trying to get rid of the Houthis as an Iranian-backed Zaydi (Shia) sect in control of neighboring Yemen for quite a while, including buying American weapons to do it. The U.S. has been militarily involved in Yemen since the 2000's through its war against Al Qaida, and was trying to prop up the "friendly" government the Houthis overthrew. China is meddling in the region as well.
In case no one was paying attention, Yemen's civil war is currently acknowledged as one of the world's worst humanitarian crises. 80% of the population is dependent on international aid for survival, and this is currently at least partially suspended due to the delivery risks.
It's been discussed in the foreign policy press that Houthis are beyond Iran's or anyone else's control; their vocal support for the Palestinian cause appears intended to raise sympathy for their own ethno-religious minority.
All in, the situation around Yemen is analogous to the Somalian civil war that sparked opportunistic sea piracy by desperate non-combatants, but the actors' stated goals and the interventions of other powers are very different.
I mean, historically most piracy was caused by countries engaging in privateering, which is just piracy in service of the state.
Those privateers just often continued doing what they were previously paid to do, but to line their own pockets instead. Capitalism in action ladies and gentlemen!
I think you are not mentioning the many centuries of city states and local warlords. The Vikings were happy to raid or trade, depending on the strength of who and where they visited. Nations/countries is one subset of history, but piracy is very very old.
The Barbary pirates and the first US naval war is an interesting episode in suppressing piracy. Those pirates were entrepreneurs, I think although their governments didn't suppress them.
I was mostly thinking golden age of piracy, european empire...tis true.
The Houthi insurgents don't need to be conquered, they just need to be blown up. Presumably the legitimate government of Yemen would be happy to resume governing the territory, given that they asked for Saudi Arabia's help against the rebels in the first place.
The only threat here are Westerners compromised by Iranian and Russian propaganda. Send drones. Bomb shitheads. Win.
I don't care about casualties at this point, and I absolutely don't trust anyone who claims that's more important than putting an end to Iranian-backed bullshit. Period.
The Saudis have been bombing them for a while now... They're kind of used to operating under threat. There's certainly a point at which the US military could wipe them out, but that might be a much harder job than just sending some bombs and dusting off their hands.
It's definitely not as simple as a few bombs, and it shouldn't just be the US.
But it's not as complicated as a ground war and conquering either.
There is a significant difference between being interested in discussion and being compromised by propaganda.
We won our war for Independence, partly because the British were distracted by other conflicts. I want our military and political leaders to be savvy and pay attention to what is cost effective and not get pulled into quagmires. I also would like them to be more concerned with the needs of citizens then corporate conglomerates, but that is just wishful thinking.
Russia and Iran are not attractive models for where and how to live as an intellectual, especially as a woman, but if the West shuts down discussion in the name of security we lose part of why we are a desirable place to live
Free discussion of policy options is part of democratic political process. When that gets shut down because of a war, and all criticism is labeled disloyalty, I think it is a huge problem and a step towards authoritarian government.
Agreed. But threatening global shipping and forcing higher costs threatens western economic stability in general, not simply corporate interests. A strong response is necessary.
I'm not advocating shutting down discussion. But I believe this Russian-Iranian axis of influence is an existential threat to the West. And I think the left is so focused on the alt-right being compromised by Russian propaganda that they're blind to their own susceptibility.
The situations they're fomenting in eastern Europe and the middle east are certainly big problems. But the existential concern is really about the degree to which they've succeeded in dividing our resolve.
I have believed that outsourcing essential manufacturing across oceans threatens military security and economic stability in the West since the 80s. If companies become more skeptical of the reliability of shipping schedules, that could have positive effects for americans and europeans.
Re resolve, I already made my point about carefully choosing policy options, strategy and tactics without wasting resources. Measure twice, cut once. Being a skeptic re the hubris that can come from having been top dog for living memory does not mean being disloyal. I'm not young, but if called on, I would serve. But it's not likely to come to that.
I'm not military expert but bombing societies that don't rely on much technology or infrastructure can be less effective than bombing a highly industrialized country.
The experts will figure out the cost benefit ratio of all of this. But there is a chance we bomb them flat and they keep shooting at ships.
I realize you're trying to make a point about a particularly intransigent non-state militant force, but I hope you realize this is a direct call for violence against Houthis in general, which is explicitly not welcome on Tildes.
I thought in the context it was pretty obvious that I was speaking specifically about the Houthi insurgents, but I'll edit and make that more clear. Thanks for the heads up.