Strategies and Modes of Overseas Strongports for Major Powers

When examining the rise of major powers, it is evident that they universally recognize the significance of overseas strongpoint strategy which means leveraging overseas ports as strongpoints to advance national foreign strategy. The primary goals of that strategy are to guarantee the security of maritime channels, resource and energy, lay out international industries, expand overseas market, as well as extend geopolitical influence. In the promotion of the strategy, the collaboration between private entities and the state in shipping industry plays a prominent role. From the perspective of mode, the dominant mode of operating overseas ports by major powers has shifted from colonial and hegemonic approaches to project-based cooperation, which tends to enhance comprehensive geopolitical impact with economic influence. As an emerging major power, China’s proposal of the “21st Century Maritime Silk Road” is both reasonable and inevitable. Over the next decade, the “Maritime Silk Road” port cooperation should upgrade top-level design, refine strategic objectives, and unleash the potential of private sector.

I. The essence of the dispute over the overseas strongpoints is the competition for international power among big powers.

The ocean is the focus for collective interests and intersecting benefits of coastal nations and foreign powers. Because ports are interconnected as a network and has international attributes by nature, the development of a country’s port and shipping industry entails both domestic port growth and overseas hub port operations. Together, domestic and overseas ports form a country’s international power network. 

Big powers have long realized the strategic role of ports. For example, in initiatives such as the Trump administration’s “Blue Dot Network”, the Biden administration’s “Build Back Better World”, the European Union’s “Global Gateway” program, and Japan’s “Infrastructure Export Development Cooperation”, overseas port projects are an important component. The U.S. and the West have invested strategic resources to compete with China in overseas port projects, aiming to obstruct China’s advancement of “21st Century Maritime Silk Road” port cooperation.

The contest over overseas strongpoints among major powers fundamentally revolves around the struggle for international economic, political, and security influence, which can be brought by controlling overseas ports. Drawing from their own experience of rise and inherent geopolitical mentality,.the U.S. and the West perceive the China’s promotion of “Maritime Silk Road’ port cooperation not merely as an economic pursuit but as a comprehensive effort to enhance global economic, political, and security influence.

II. The main actors of the port and shipping industry chain have been helping to realize the overseas strongpoint strategy of great powers.

It has long been a universal experience for countries to harness the power of actors in the port and shipping industry chain to participate in the operation of overseas hub ports. Different private sectors along this chain exhibit varying behavioral preferences, which are aligned and coordinated with one or several aspects of a nation’s foreign policy objectives.   

(i) Strategic objectives of overseas strongpoints: safeguarding channels and primary product supply, laying out international industries, and expanding overseas market.

Ports serve as vital hubs for resource distribution, and port cities act as nodes for economic interactions between nations. Participating in the construction of foreign ports implies deep involvement in the economic development of the host country.

Different types of port cooperation correspond to varying forms of economic collaboration. Overseas ports typically serve two major functions: commerce and supply. While the supply-oriented function is often achieved through commercial partnerships, the primary strategic objective for major countries operating overseas ports is commerce. Due to the complex yet convenient systemic development of economic circulation, bulk ports facilitate the export of petroleum, minerals, and grain from inland production areas. In contrast, container ports focus on planning and developing industrial zones and nurturing local markets. These container ports support foreign direct investment and industrial goods trade for the host country.

(ii) Non-state actors in the port and shipping industry chain are the practitioners shaping overseas hub ports.

The port and shipping industry chain, with ports as its nodes, connects shippers, carriers, and consumers. In this era of globalization, these actors may be in different countries or at least belong to various nations. International capital plays an increasingly significant role in overseas port projects, involving shippers, manufacturers, port builders, port operators, and resource and energy corporations.

Shipping companies engaging in port operations is a prevailing trend in modern port and shipping logistics industry. Currently, shipping rights wield substantial influence over port activities. After the global congestion of container ports in 2021, more manufacturing companies and trading firms have deeply engaged in port and shipping activities. The ability of upstream supply chain enterprises and consumers to shape ports is continually increasing. As international port operating companies came into being, they often hold operational rights for dozens of port terminals. By integrating resources and forming strong alliances, they have enhanced their influence over port.They have highly internationalized management and operations, which puts them in a strong position within the realm of global port operations.

(iii) Private sectors in the port and shipping industry chain forge synergies with the will of the state.

Actors along the port and shipping industry chain are not isolated from the will of the state. In fact, non-state actors along this chain have been predominant practitioners of a nation’s overseas hub port strategy in all times. Approaches of western countries converge in emphasizing the role of private sector in overseas port project collaborations, and underscore the mobilization of private capital to achieve investment goals. Non-state actors have established unprecedented robust connections with major countries’ overseas strongpoint strategies.

III. Overseas strongpoint strategy of great powers has developed into three modes.

(i) Colonial mode 

The colonial overseas port strategy is the most comprehensive one in terms of its scope of power and interests. Western countries exercised comprehensive control over their colonies, and they often exploited “consular jurisdiction,” “unilateral most-favored-nation treatment,” and “leasing rights” to erode the sovereignty of semi-colonial countries. The control of colonial overseas ports involves undermining the sovereignty of the target country while exerting geopolitical influence, intervening in security affairs, and seizing economic benefits.

By the Second World War, the great powers had finished dividing up the global coastal areas and important islands in oceans, and through the control and operation of overseas ports and harbors, they seized economic benefits, strengthened their shaping of the target countries, and controlled the strategic sea lanes. After World War II, most of the oppressed countries gained national independence, and the colonies gradually disappeared, but the United States, Britain, France and other traditional maritime powers still occupy important pivot islands, such as Guam, Hawaii, American Samoa, Diego Garcia, French Polynesia, and Réunion Island. The United States, the United Kingdom, France and other countries also claim to be “global countries” and to have vested interest in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. However, in general, these overseas port hubs have maintained some of their geopolitical, security, and political functions from the colonial era, though their economic role has weakened.   

(ii) Hegemonic mode

The hegemonic overseas port strategy pursued by the United States results from its unique international status under specific historical conditions. Compared to the colonial overseas strategy, the hegemonic approach involves both retreat and advancement. It places less emphasis on the strategic role of economy, but focuses more on geopolitical, security, and political influence. In the post-World War II era, the United States consolidated its overseas ports through its alliance system. Within the framework of alliances, it signed agreements to establish military bases in allied and partner countries, stationing troops in these contracting nations. Until now, the U.S. still maintains myriad naval bases worldwide. The hegemonic overseas port strategy seems to respect the sovereignty of other nations, with military agreements seemingly conducted in a “civilized” manner. However, under the strong deterrent of U.S. comprehensive power, it is hard for contracting nations to get rid of its influence, and the U.S is unlikely to relinquish its power over these overseas ports easily.

Why didn’t the United States promote a colonial overseas port strategy? Objectively, the wave of national independence movements in developing countries after World War II made it difficult to sustain the colonial mode. Subjectively, the U.S. relies on its military, economic, scientific and technological, and international discourse tools to support its hegemonic system. The dominance of the U.S. dollar and technological prowess obviate the need for deliberate economic influence through overseas ports. Additionally, overseas military bases have already fulfilled their mission of enhancing political and security influence. These above reasons explain why the U.S. has long been less concerned about the cooperation on overseas port projects, as well as why the U.S. pays attention to the contest over China’s overseas port projects while undergoing the decline of its hegemony. However, the hollowing out of industries may constrain the effectiveness of this mode’s shift.

(iii) Cooperation mode

In the current context of waning neoliberalism, rising geopolitical competition, and the resurgence of great power rivalry, the competition of overseas port strategy has returned to the forefront among major powers. However, the colonial overseas port strategy has lost its vitality, and the hegemonic approach, a product of the huge foreign investment of the U.S. and its external intervention, is difficult to replicate. Instead, the overseas port project cooperation mode has become the mainstream choice for great powers seeking to promote their overseas port strategy and enhance their geopolitical influence.

Overseas port project cooperation mode is a full use of national “economic strength”, which is not based on force and occupation, but on long-term and systematic investment. Compared to the colonial and hegemonic approaches, this mode is more globally appropriate. While the rights ceded by the host country are limited under this mode, the comprehensive impact on the host country is profound. The strategic significance of overseas port project cooperation may translate into the shaping of port cities, industrial hinterlands, economic structures, national governance, and legal frameworks of economy, ultimately enhancing a great power’s comprehensive influence in the host country.

IV. Conclusion

As a rising major power, China’s “21st Century Maritime Silk Road” initiative is both reasonable and inevitable. On a new journey in this new era, looking ahead to the next decade, China should steadfastly promote the “Maritime Silk Road” port cooperation—a unique overseas port project cooperation mode with Chinese characteristics. Efforts should been made in further upgrading top-level designs, refining strategic objectives, including channel security maintenance, primary product supply, international industrial chains layout and overseas market development, as well as unleashing the potential of both government and private entities, especially manufacturing companies, so as to safeguard national development and security interests through “Maritime Silk Road” port cooperation.（Wang Xu, Deputy Director of Institute of Marine Strategy, China Institutes of Contemporary International Relationship）