By Wang Xu
Amidst global turmoil, chaos is spreading to the seas. Following the disruption of the Black Sea grain route due to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the Red Sea shipping lanes are now being affected by the spillover effects of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The Red Sea crisis sparks increasing global attention, highlighting major changes in the global maritime geopolitical landscape.
Countries in the Middle East have reacted lukewarmly to the US campaign “Operation Prosperity Guardian”. European countries have distanced themselves from the campaign because they are unwilling to hand over naval command. Italy, France, and Spain have made it clear that they will not follow the action against Yemen without authorization from the United Nations Security Council. Several merchant ships have used "China's interests are involved" as a reason to avoid maritime risks in the Red Sea, and many insurance companies have explicitly stated that “war risk insurance cannot be applied to US, UK, and Israeli vessels sailing towards the Red Sea.”The unthinkable "disassociation" and "refusal of insurance" are happening to the world's only maritime hegemon. To be precise, the decline of US maritime hegemony did not begin today, but the attack on ships in the Red Sea by Houthi rebels has severely damaged the US-led maritime security order and the credibility of maritime hegemony, which will greatly accelerate this process.
The reasons for the US to attack the Houthi rebels in Yemen are numerous, but the reasons for not doing so are even more immediate and painful. The US is caught in a dilemma between maintaining its maritime hegemony and retreating from its strategic posture. On one hand, maritime hegemony is the cornerstone of US global hegemony. Maintaining the commitment to "freedom of navigation" and providing maritime security products are essential for the US to maintain its global hegemony. On the other hand, the Red Sea-Suez is not the main shipping route for US foreign trade. Some US media have even pointed out that the disruption of Red Sea shipping is beneficial for US energy exports to Europe. Given its own interests, the US does not seem to need to invest excessively in the region.
Moreover, the US is determined to disengage from the Middle East to strengthen its "Indo-Pacific Strategy". If it is drawn deeper into the Houthi rebels, it is obviously not in line with the strategic direction of focusing on containing China. To shrink, or to maintain maritime hegemony in the Red Sea? This contradiction is the deep reason why the US has been struggling with its stance on the Red Sea crisis for more than two months because a declining US maritime hegemony can no longer reduce resource investment while quickly resolving crises.
At the same time, this Red Sea crisis will also lead to a subversion of the global pattern of naval warfare.
First, the US, which was the first to use drones on the Afghan battlefield, is now experiencing setbacks from the challenges posed by drones. This reflects a revolution in naval warfare. Aided by the support of technological revolution, unmanned and intelligent operations have become the key to asymmetric competition at sea. Drones have become a convenient new tool for maritime blockades, while the integration of land, sea, air, and cyberspace has created an intelligence analysis and early warning platform for all-domain awareness. This has ushered in a "transparent era" for maritime operations. Maritime situational awareness technology is rewriting the existing deterrence paradigm of waiting for opportunity at chokepoints in the straits. In addition, the deployment and practical application of intelligent unmanned equipment will lower the threshold for warfare and bring about indiscriminate casualties.
Second, with the strengthening of naval deterrence, "regional denial" has become more difficult to achieve, and "land-based control of the sea" has replaced "sea-based control of the land" as the decisive factor in naval warfare. At present, US and UK attempts to destroy Houthi missile launchers and drone facilities through air strikes have not yielded significant results in degrading their long-range strike capabilities. The Houthis' weapons systems are characterized by dispersed and mobile deployment, making them difficult to eliminate short of US and UK ground operations. This poses a challenge to the existing maritime military hegemony of "overseas military bases + naval forces". This is why the US and Japan are working together to strengthen the “Southwest Islands Wall” and are keen to increase the number of military bases in the Philippines to reduce the risk of carrier battle groups and bases being targeted. Nevertheless, the presence of maritime hegemonic countries coming from distant seas will be weakened in the near seas and pushed further into distant waters.
Third, non-state actors will play a greater role in future maritime battlefield. The Houthis' naval capabilities are backed by state support and can be exploited by certain countries. The Houthis' declaration of "support for Palestine" has gained moral backing, which to some extent influences the world's perception of the attacks on ships in the Red Sea. As technology diffuses, the maritime combat capabilities and cognitive influence of non-state actors will continue to grow. Unlike traditional pirates or maritime smugglers, their involvement in shaping maritime security situations is continuous and intense. This could become a new variable in the maritime security competition between states, especially the major powers.
(The author is the Deputy Director of the Institute of Maritime Strategy at the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations)
Editor's note: Originally published on chinanews.com, this article is translated from Chinese into English and edited by the China Military Online. The information and opinions in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of eng.chinamil.com.cn.
