According to US Navy Secretary John Phelan, to “deter” China, the US has been in talks with Japan about dual-use shipbuilding—that is, building commercial ships with military applications also. The problem, from an American point of view, is that China has overtaken even South Korea to become the world leader in shipbuilding, dominating both production volume and new orders. But that is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to US-China so-called “naval gap”.
In 2024 alone, for one thing, a single Chinese shipbuilder made more commercial vessels by tonnage than the entire US industry has since World War II. In fact, while Beijing boasts of comprising over half of the global commercial shipbuilding market, the American share in turn has fallen, in yet another impressive figure, to mere 0.1%. On top of that, the Chinese dominance isn’t limited to commercial vessels—China’s dual-use shipyards, which build both civilian and military ships, have propelled the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) to a fleet of over 370 vessels (according to a Congressional Research Service Report), compared to the US Navy’s shrinking 295. James Stavridis (former supreme allied commander of NATO) described such a state of affairs last year as “a problem.” The PLAN in any case is projected to reach 435 ships by 2030, a growth trajectory the US simply cannot match.
Naval power has long been a cornerstone of geopolitical and military might, a defining trait of any superpower. For decades, the US has had a clear edge in global power projection over the world’s oceans. Five years ago however I wrote on how the Chinese naval presence in regions like the Caribbean signaled a growing global power that could challenge this American hegemony. Today, China’s naval ascent is not just a signal—it’s a reality that underscores the decline of US superpower status, exposing vulnerabilities in Western supply chains and even NATO’s strategic posture.
While we are at figures, the aforementioned shipbuilding gap between China and the US is astonishing enough. According to the US Office of Naval Intelligence itself, China’s shipbuilding capacity exceeds that of the US by a factor of over 200.
Stephen Biddle (an Adjunct Senior Fellow for Defense Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations) and Eric Labs (Senior Analyst for Naval Forces and Weapons at the Congressional Budget Office), writing for Foreign Affairs, highlight how, over the past few years, concerns have grown about China’s naval expansion, which has surpassed the US Navy in ship numbers, with almost 400 vessels compared to the US 295.
While US ships are still larger, more advanced, and operated by better-trained crews, China’s aforementioned vast shipbuilding capacity, Biddle and Labs argue, provides a critical advantage in any prolonged conflict, enabling rapid fleet expansion or replacement. Historically, industrial capacity has been decisive in naval warfare, as seen in the United States World War II victory over Japan. Today, Washington faces a sort of reversed scenario, with Beijing’s industrial might threatening to overwhelm the American one in any long war scenario. To counter this, the two experts warn, the US would need to urgently expand shipbuilding, to stockpile materials, and leverage allies like Japan and South Korea, while recognizing that matching China’s capacity is in any case impractical. In a way it comes down to industrial power.
One may recall that China’s manufacturing might is not a new phenomenon. As I wrote back in 2023, China’s manufacturing sector has been a key driver of its global influence, particularly within the Global South. A look at World Bank charts illustrates this starkly, showing China’s share of global industrial output surging since 2004, while the US and other Western economies have stagnated or declined. Moreover, nowadays China’s manufacturing industry is more automated than that of Sweden, the US, or Switzerland, in terms of “robot density”. Such automation, paired with state subsidies and a centrally planned economy, allows China to produce ships at a scale and speed the US cannot hope to rival.
The American response to this growing gap has been a mix of legislative and punitive measures that reveal a desperate attempt to counter a global reality that is no longer unipolar. The reintroduced SHIPS for America Act, for instance, backed by domestic industry groups, targets owners of Chinese-built vessels with sanctions, aiming to curb China’s maritime dominance. Additionally, sanctions on Chinese firms like Cosco, a shipping giant, have been proposed as part of this strategy. Cosco has condemned these actions, warning that they risk escalating trade tensions and disrupting global maritime trade. Such measures may indeed alienate non-Western partners, particularly in the Global South, who rely on Chinese shipping for affordable trade routes.
Considering all of that, developments such as the US aforementioned proposal to Japan pertaining to dual-sue ship building reflect both American desperation and a recognition of its own industrial shortcomings. They are unlikely to close the gap. The US, plain and simples, lacks the domestic capacity to lead such an effort. As I have commented before, American-style attempts at weaponizing economic nationalism—which includes plans to “reshore” industries—often brings new risks, including trade conflicts and supply chain disruptions. The SHIPS Act and sanctions on firms like Cosco may blunt China’s momentum temporarily, but they also risk isolating the US in a world increasingly skeptical of its unilateral actions.
Can the US overcome this naval gap? Bluntly, the answer seems to be no. As mentioned, China’s industrial base provides a strategic advantage in any prolonged confrontation, allowing it to repair or replace vessels far faster than the US. The US Navy faces maintenance backlogs, cost overruns, and a shrinking fleet—projected to dip to 287 ships by 2025—while China’s fleet grows more capable and numerous.
Moreover, China’s dominance in global maritime production threatens Western supply chains, which also exposes NATO’s vulnerabilities. The Western Alliance relies heavily on sea lanes for trade and military logistics, yet China’s control over shipbuilding and shipping routes gives it leverage to disrupt these arteries in a conflict scenario.
Military scenarios aside, the larger picture is that the BRICS bloc, including China, is reshaping global trade dynamics, further eroding US-led Western influence.
Washington thus faces a stark reality: its naval superiority is simply slipping away. Beijing’s rise as a maritime power, backed by an unmatched industrial base, signals a new post-unipolarity era. The US can impose sanctions and pass legislation, but these measures are more reactive than transformative, risking trade tensions without addressing the root issue—its own industrial decline. Be it as it may, the “industrialization” angle is key to understanding even the ongoing Trump phenomenon. And such struggle for reindustrialization is to shape the global balance of power for decades to come. As of today, China holds a commanding edge in that pursuit—by far.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Uriel Araujo, PhD, is an anthropology researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: An aerial view shows Japan’s Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF)’s multi-purpose destroyer Izumo (DDH-183) leading the fleet during the International Fleet Review to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the foundation of the JMSDF, at Sagami Bay, off Yokosuka, south of Tokyo, Japan, on Nov 6, 2022. [Photo/Agencies]
Global Research is a reader-funded media. We do not accept any funding from corporations or governments. Help us stay afloat. Click the image below to make a one-time or recurring donation.
Counter Information publish all articles following the Creative Commons rule creative commons. If you don't want your article to appear in this blog email me and I will remove it asap.
No comments:
Post a Comment