An independent commission assessing the nation’s defense strategy recently released its final report. The key takeaway from the congressionally appointed commission is this: “The United States faces the most challenging global environment with the most severe ramifications since the end of the Cold War. The trends are getting worse, not better.”
Notably, the report identifies China and Russia as major strategic threats and recommends that the U.S. increase its fiscal commitment as a function of GDP to upwards of 5% — nearly double today’s spending level.
Yet despite the comprehensive nature of the report, it overlooks the vital importance of ensuring the health of the country’s domestic maritime capacity, a key national security concern. By renewing their support for the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, more commonly known as the Jones Act, Congress can bolster our economic and national security.
The Jones Act requires that any shipping or transportation services going between multiple U.S. ports must be American built, American-crewed and American-owned and American-flagged ships.
Thanks to the Jones Act, “American ships, crews to man them, ship construction and repair yards, intermodal equipment, terminals, cargo tracking systems and other infrastructure are available to the U.S. military at a moment’s notice in times of war, national emergency, or even in peacetime,” says the American Maritime Partnership, which represents the domestic maritime industry.
In addition to providing cargo capacity for the U.S. military if needed, the law provides very clear benefits for protecting America’s homeland from terrorist attacks and from foreign powers using their shipping assets to engage in espionage. If the Chinese spy balloon incidents bothered you, for example, imagine allowing Chinese ships to have a permanent presence inside America’s heartland.
A handful of groups and elected officials have been making a concerted push to limit or repeal the Jones Act. Fortunately, Congress isn’t actively working to repeal the measure, but it hasn’t made a robust endorsement either.
Needed to support the military and economy
Some claim that the law, which was passed shortly after the end of World War I, is antiquated and needs to be repealed. But Congress enacted it to make sure that our shipbuilding and repairing industries were strong enough to support our military and commerce needs in a time of crisis.
Prior to World War I, America relied on a combination of U.S.-flagged and foreign vessels for its shipping needs across international waters, in U.S. coastal waters and throughout our inland waterways. But once WWI began, most foreign ships withdrew their vessels from U.S. shipping to focus on their own war efforts. This reality highlighted the need for the Jones Act, as American policymakers wanted to be sure that the country wasn’t caught off guard again. That need still exists today.
By effectively building an important virtual wall, the Jones Act prevents Chinese ships from sailing up and down America’s more than 12,000 miles of inland waterways and spying and collecting sensitive private data or even transporting special operators and military equipment deep inside the United States.
It also helps protect the homeland by allowing the country to focus its security assets primarily on our major outer perimeter ports where there is so much international shipping from around the globe.
An economic security issue
But making sure that the U.S. has a strong maritime industry is not just a national security issue, it’s an economic security issue as well.
Realizing the strategic impact of a domestic shipping industry, China has heavily subsidized its shipping and shipbuilding industry to the tune of at least $130 billion. As the largest player in shipping across the globe, 85% of the world’s shipping containers are produced in China. It also dominates seven of the world’s busiest ports as part and parcel of its “belt and road” initiative and is continuing to aggressively expand the number of choke points they have all across the globe.
In contrast, the U.S. does not subsidize its domestic shipping industry. But the protections the Jones Act provides have allowed it to stay competitive. All told, there are about 40,000 vessels that qualify under the Jones Act to operate in America’s waterways, nearly three-quarters of which are qualified to support the U.S. military when needed. The industry supports about 650,000 American jobs and provide more than $150 billion annually in economic impact, underscoring the need to protect it from economic predation by Beijing.
Without the strong and vibrant civilian maritime industry the Jones Act supports, however, Congress would have to increase the defense budget by at least $65 billion to build a defense shipping capacity and then budget tens of billions of dollars every year to maintain the fleet. But since it would only be used part time, it would be both highly expensive and highly inefficient, unnecessarily stretching defense budgets and undermining the American economy in the process.
For the same reason we shouldn’t be buying our missile defense technology from foreign powers, we ought not be dependent upon foreign powers for shipbuilding and ship repairing capacity or for shipping capability. Keeping the industry free from foreign influence or pressure in order to fuel our economy and keep goods flowing within the supply chain as well as to ensure it can support its military needs in an emergency is imperative. The Jones Act helps with both of these important goals.
Once one understands these stark realities, it becomes clear that we must continue to support the Jones Act to prevent China and other adversaries from gaining a strategic, military and economic advantage over the U.S..
That’s why our military leaders, who have the responsibility to maintain the supply chains to defend America and equip our troops, strongly support the Jones Act. And it is why members of Congress seeking to increase America’s military strength must do so as well.
