Australian Maritime Issues 2005 - Royal Australian Navy

FUTURE SEA POWER
29
sea control by coastal states, if achieved in the future, will invalidate this assumption.
Pervasive and permanent human presence (coastguards, civilian assets, etc.) will make
it a much more complex environment, as government and private entities are more likely
to actively regulate larger areas of ocean. Maritime forces will therefore be operating
within the fabric of a nation (in or near national heartland), and as such be more readily
observable, with less time and room to manoeuvre unopposed.
On the defensive side of the equation, the protection of national maritime jurisdictions
may not fall simply to existing, traditional maritime forces (navies and air forces). These
forces have high capital costs, a large proportion of which can be attributed to operating
in the marine and air environments, and being able to operate almost anywhere in the
world. While this provides exceptional and valuable flexibility, this is not a necessity
if the only aim is to protect a fixed asset. The cost of armaments is always an issue
for any nation, any differences being ones of degree. In pursuit of maximum effect for
minimum expenditure, a modern iteration of ‘flotilla defence’ may seem a cost-effective
solution, just as it did at the start of the 20th century. For national armed forces this could
pose a further institutional challenge, as the foundation may be coastal artillery rather
than ships or aircraft. National military forces might have to critically examine how such
defences can be provided, as any future coastal artillery will have to operate seamlessly
with naval and air forces, as well as civil authorities.
The current pre-eminence of the US Navy (USN) is also likely to promote consideration
of ‘flotilla defence’. No nation can lightly contemplate directly challenging the USN: this
is unlikely for anything other than the defence of vital national interests. Furthermore, as
all nations’ interests coincide in the safe passage of international trade, and US interests
are at least the equal of other nations, it is unlikely that many nations would seek to have
the ability to exert sea control at any great distance from their coasts. 20 In other words,
few nations will have the motivation to exercise temporary sea control. But permanent
sea control of national jurisdiction, provided by a form of ‘flotilla defence’, is very likely
to be attractive and important to many countries.
Conclusion
This paper is intended to stimulate debate on the future of the nature and practice of
maritime strategy, both at the national and military levels; however, an appreciation of
the history of humanity in the maritime environment over the last thousand years, and
certainly over the last 50 to 100 years, does indicate firm trends. The most fundamental
of these trends is for a more permanent and pervasive human presence in the maritime
environment. This paper contends that this must have implications for our conception of
that environment, and for the practice of international relations as they relate to maritime
affairs. It also has implications for maritime forces and for navies in particular, as the
ultimate representatives of national power at sea.
As the imprint of civilisation on this planet grows, our dependence on the oceans will
at least remain at current levels, and probably grow. Nation states, as the basic unit
of international governance, will compete to obtain the greatest benefit from their
maritime jurisdictions, areas that will more than ever be regarded as their heartland, and