By James R. Holmes
Last month The Economist ran a profile of China's port-development projects around the world, concluding that Beijing's "growing empire of ports abroad is mainly about trade, not aggression.” It pains me to quibble with my favorite publication, but this finding is a trifle misleading.
First, sea power isn't an either/or proposition. Its mercantile and military components overlap and reinforce each other. Mahan discerns a symbiotic relationship between commercial and naval pursuits. Indeed, he pronounces the propensity to trade the chief trait qualifying a society for sea power. Forward bases are one of the struts on which seagoing enterprises rest. Not just men-of-war but merchantmen are part of the nautical ensemble. And so on.
By Mahanian logic, a seafaring people should do what China is doing, and what marine states like the United States, Great Britain, and the Netherlands once did. It will seek commercial, political, and military access to regions that are home to important export and import markets. What's about trade today could be about aggression — or, if you prefer a less freighted term, naval power projection — tomorrow.
Read the full story at The Diplomat