03 Oct 2024
Acknowledgements
Good morning Australian Naval Institute President Commodore Peter Leavy, esteemed speakers, guests, ladies and gentlemen. It is a pleasure to be here for this important event. I would like to begin by acknowledging the Ngunnawal people on whose traditional lands we meet today. I pay my respects to their Elders past, present and emerging.
I’d also like to acknowledge the 18 ships and more than 1,100 sailors and officers that are at sea today, performing their duties in the national interest while we are gathered here in Canberra. And more importantly, the families who support and enable their service. It is a truism that without the support, the love, the resilience and the forbearance of our family members, there would be no Royal Australian Navy.
Finally – and importantly, I’d like to acknowledge the namesake of this event, a mentor and a dear friend, the late Rear Admiral James Goldrick. I am grateful that his legacy, and his prodigious intellect, will continue to live on through this seminar. In March last year, I had the privilege of calling on James just before I flew to join the Prime Minister for the announcements in San Diego. James was in his final days. I was authorised to and duly briefed him on the nuclear powered submarine Optimal Pathway that we were about to announce to the world. His smile that spread from ear to ear will stay with me for the rest of my career, as will the image of him marking some lucky student’s assignment from his bed in his final days. He was indeed a national treasure and is sorely missed.
Introduction
It’s an honour to speak to you on a topic that is fundamental to our future, and of course, of great personal interest to me – the security of our maritime domain, which I argue underpins the wellbeing and security of our nation.
Australia is an island trading nation; we do derive our economic wellbeing and therefore our national security potential from the Maritime Domain. From the Sea Lines of Communication that enable our almost one trillion dollar import-export economy, to the multiple seabed cables that connect us to the global financial system and the internet of things. This access is vital for our economic wellbeing. We don’t have many existential issues, but as an island-trading nation, access to the sea is one of them.
For almost 80 years our access to the sea and the seabed could be assumed, largely because the international community accepted and universally adhered to what we now call the Rules Based Global Order – a collection of treaties, laws and conventions that underpin coastal state’s rights and freedom of the seas.
Recent developments, however, show us that this access can no longer be assumed and history tells us that when existential national interests are at risk, assurance mechanisms follow. In our case, increased focus on Diplomacy and Deterrence, supported by a stronger Defence capability in the Maritime Domain, is that assurance response.
The sea though, is also the beating heart of our planet, it is the lifeblood of humanity, generating oxygen and food, and it stores largely untapped sources of metals and minerals fundamental to modern life. And the maritime trade networks that crisscross around our planet are the arteries and veins which keep the system running, transporting the essentials from far flung places to our homes. In this way, the sea is the source from which our prosperity flows. But it’s not just about our future, it’s is about everyone’s future.
The Maritime-Economy Nexus
For centuries, the sea has been a global highway for trade, a buffer against threats and increasingly, a supply of resources. Consider the following data points. Global undersea mineral tonnage is estimated at approximately 250 trillion dry tonnes, which is almost twenty times the estimated global terrestrial tonnage. That’s a significant repository of resources, at a time when we have exploited much of the resource deposits on land and demand for precious minerals is unprecedented.
Further, there are nearly 1.4 million kilometres of submarine cables in service globally, with these cables accounting for 99% of global data usage. These submerged networks erode the distance that separates us. They are what enable us to communicate with one another and participate in trade through access to the global financial system.
Additionally, the shipping industry is responsible for the carriage of around 90% of global trade. All the products, equipment and foods that we use each day and often take for granted, rely on this system. To those who suggest Australia rode to prosperity on the sheep’s back, I say, rubbish! Sheep don’t swim, very far. This nation sailed to prosperity on the ship’s deck. We forget that at our own peril.
But this system is under severe stress. Alarmingly, in the first two months of 2024, trade passing through the Suez Canal dropped by 50% from 2023 due to attacks on shipping in the Red Sea.
If you’ve seen the news headlines in the last twenty four hours following the rising tensions between Iran and Israel, then you’ve seen the comments made by several analysts and economists who suggest that if the conflict increases or is protracted, Australia’s economic, strategic and social stability could be at risk. Stock market, oil, commodities, shipping routes – all could be affected.
And I’d also ask you to consider this: between 1950 to 2020 most countries, 157 to be exact, have had a maritime boundary dispute at one point or another. In 2008 over 54% of all maritime disputes remained unsettled.
These data points tell a story. That modern, prosperous life relies on good behaviour and strong maritime security to keep trade and information flowing, and to obtain the precious resources used in technology that keeps our networks running. However, today, the world’s oceans are the backdrop to much of the competition, crisis and conflict of our times. As a three ocean, island trading nation like ours, these developments are a direct threat to our economic wellbeing. Simply put, there is no economic security for our nation without strong maritime security.
There is No Economic Security Without Maritime Security
It might be easy to pay this off as expected comments from someone wearing this uniform, but history shows us this is not a new phenomenon.
In World War I, the British led a naval blockade on Germany from 1914-1919, blocking access to the English Channel and the North Sea. This severely restricted Germany’s ability to import daily commodities, leading to widespread food shortages, degraded industrial production and economic collapse as inflation soared. The success of the blockade is considered a key element that contributed to the Allies eventual victory in the war.
What are the lessons here? That the Maritime Domain has long been a place of competition, crisis and conflict. Economic security is central to the well being of all coastal states, but this is particularly acute for island nations seemingly at the bottom of the developed world.
Without a secure foundation of economic stability, a nation is inherently vulnerable to both internal discontent and external threats, particularly at a time where maritime trade is the lifeblood of global commerce. A nation doesn’t lose conflicts by lack of firepower alone. A nation fails when it loses the will and or the economic ability to continue a fight. In short, maritime security and economic security are symbiotic; there is no economic security for Australia without strong maritime security.
The I Paradigm of Inseacurity
In my view, what happens on the sea plays a pivotal role in determining global security. Unfortunately, instability at sea has risen in the last decade as nations have increasingly disregarded the Rules Based Order that has enabled our peace and prosperity since World War II. What is happening at sea today is reverberating back to shore and across nations, affecting all of us.
Accordingly, seacurity or inseacurity – as the case may be, either strengthens or challenges the Rules Based Order. When inseacurity rises it should be of interest to all of us, regardless of what service, department or sector we work in.
To my mind, to adequately address these security challenges, we need to be clear when we discuss them and avoid ambiguity. So, what do I actually mean when I say inseacurity is on the rise? I submit there are four key principles which underpin and effect inseacurity, which some call The I Paradigm of Inseacurity.
Our reality has changed in two areas. First, the contemporary world is now interconnected to an unprecedented extent. The seas are the highways that connect us to one another. On, above and below the ocean flows the movement of people, trade, energy, precious minerals, financial transactions, information technology and much, much more. Basically, people things, ideas, trade and information flows between nations and people by the sea. The sea is the connective tissue of our planet. That is the first reality that I feel we must all accept.
The interconnection of mutually beneficial trade and information carries with it complexity. We are in an era of unparalleled, and almost unfathomable, complexity. A complexity so pervasive that we cannot fully appreciate how complex it is. For example, a simple question like, ‘Where did this coffee come from?’ becomes incredibly difficult to answer. Are we talking about where it was grown? where it was roasted? The trader in-between? Or where it was packaged or where it was sold? Who made it? How did it arrive here? Are we talking about who owned the plant? The packaging company or the label on the jar?
This is an example from one industry, but complexity now applies in many industries. As naturalist John Muir once stated, “When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world.” So, too does this sentiment apply to the nature of the modern world and the international system. We are now in a position of such deep complexity that no single nation can order the world, but many, together can shape it. This is a fundamental change to our reality.
Which leads to the second reality: interdependence. The interconnectedness of our world has led to our economies and fates becoming interdependent. An insightful Spanish sociologist Manuel Castells wrote in 1996:
“We are living in a world that is increasingly connected, where what happens in one corner of the planet can have dramatic effect in another corner, and where the speed and depth of these interconnections pose new challenges to our capacity to understand and to govern the global processes that affect our lives.”
Essentially, what hurts one of us, will often affect many of us, sometimes in ways not foreseen. Which is why, when shipping in the Red Sea is disrupted, it affects grocery bills here in Australia. Or why the grounding of the Ever Given in the Suez Canal, affects prices at the petrol bowser. And why a protracted Iran-Israel conflict will impact many aspects of Australian life: socially and economically. Again, this reality like the first, shows us that no nation, no matter how big or powerful, can singlehandedly control the ordering of the world. Order and stability requires the broadest participation.
Interconnection and interdependence mean the sea can be a source of either seacurity or inseacurity. So, if these are our realities, what can nations do? Well, they can inoculate themselves from inseacurity by using influence to pursue national interests. They can operate with integrity by having due regard to the rights and views of other nations. They can abide by international law. If a nation opts to pursue their national interests through these avenues, I argue, we can inoculate ourselves, and the region, against inseacurity, by reducing that uncertainty.
Conversely, when nations engage in intimidation to advance their expeditionary interests, when they operate with iniquity that takes advantage of other nations’ vulnerabilities, disregarding the desires of other sovereign states, or when they disregard international law, it incites inseacurity in the region and it affects us all.
Simply, through the medium of the sea, we have become interconnected and our fates and economies have become more interdependent. The greater the number of nations that inoculate themselves, the less inseacurity in our region and the brighter our shared fates.
Australia’s Reliance on the Sea
So what for Australia specifically? Our economy is built upon our ability to trade across the seas. More than 99% of Australia’s exports by volume are carried by sea. Whether it’s iron ore to China, LNG to Japan, or agricultural products to Southeast Asia, these exports form the backbone of our economy. And Australia is the custodian of the third largest Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the world, spanning approximately 8.2 million square kilometres, which equates to around 0.3 square kilometres of EEZ per Australian citizen. This vast maritime area is rich in resources, from fisheries to oil and gas, and protecting these resources is a matter of national interest.
Our imports—everything from oil to electronics to consumer goods—also come across the sea. Without access to secure maritime routes, our economy would grind to a halt. The interconnectedness of global supply chains means that any disruption—whether from conflict, piracy, or even natural disasters—can have immediate and significant consequences. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter how big the ADF is if it doesn’t have the fuel to sail, drive or fly.
So, Australia has made the choice to begin inoculating ourselves against the inseacurity I discussed earlier, by investing in our ports, shipping infrastructure, and maritime industries. The government is also heavily investing in our Navy and our integrated maritime capabilities and we are being incredibly transparent about it to the world.
It should come as no surprise that around 40% of proportional Defence investment is in Maritime Domain capabilities. As a three ocean, island trading nation, we have acknowledged we must have a Defence Force of sufficient strength to protect our wider maritime system on which our wellbeing and security ultimately depends. This reflects our renewed understanding that the sea is more than just a transport route—it is our economic lifeline. As Deputy Prime Minister Marles stated in 2022:
“Australia’s defence capabilities cannot match those of major powers. Australian statecraft is only viable if it is underpinned by the ability to project force and power: to deter military threats, and defend Australia’s national interests within our immediate region.”
Further, the world, with the Maritime Domain as the bridge across it, has become so intertwined and complex that potency and partnership are the only roads to success. Potency through a strong, lethal Defence Force that can deter threats against our interests. And partnership between nations that value seacurity for the region. That partnership is also between navies and industry, local government and academic institutions.
I would like to acknowledge Jay’s [Tarriela] presence here from the Philippines. Sometimes I get asked why is the Australian Navy partnering with the Philippine Navy to a renewed extent. I submit that the sovereign rights of the coastal state of the Philippines in their Exclusive Economic Zone is underwritten by international law and the Rules Based Order. If their access to the sea is challenged or permanently changed, it has implications for every coastal state, every custodian of an Exclusive Economic Zone. That is the significance of our partnership today.
Closing Remarks
In closing, I again humbly submit that as a three ocean island trading nation, we have few existential issues, but access to the sea is one of them and if it cannot be assumed, it must be assured. Because in our case, there is no national security without economic security and there can be no economic security if we don’t enjoy strong maritime security.
Thank you for your attention.