While the operations of the American coalition in the Red Sea continue, the head of foreign policy of the European Union, Josep Borrell, announced a similar, but independent, mission for the European Union, called Aspides, whose purpose is “to protect ships offshore in the Red Sea”. On February 5th, The European Union has asked Italy to provide the Admiral Officer who will lead the Aspides mission.
The intention is to counter the “Ansar Allah” movement, which claimed it wanted to impose a naval blockade on ships passing through the Red Sea bound for Israel or owned by Israelis, with the aim of stopping the war in Gaza.
Naval operations in the Red Sea are linked, to a large extent, to the control of sea lanes and strategic routes. History after all indicates that control of the seas and shipping routes was a main reason for British hegemony in the world and the reason for the success of the so-called Pax Britannica, or in ancient times Athenian naval power.
The century of the “Pax Britannica” (1815-1914), or “Peace of Europe”, when Britain reached its peak as a hegemonic power, was seen as proof that acting as a “balancer from outside the conflict” could be an excellent overall strategy for maintaining power.
Studies indicate that Britain’s ability to build a global empire during the 18th and 19th centuries was possible due to its naval superiority. During that period, British foreign policy was largely based on the so-called “rule by waves” strategy, a strategy that called for the development of a powerful navy to defend British interests around the world, particularly its colonies and trade routes, as well as the royal fleet. Navy that controls the waterways. Strategic action to support British interests.
According to some analysts, this maritime deployment to control the waterways is now in the sights of the United States. The Middle East is a region of strategic importance, especially in the Gulf and in Bab al-Mandab, the southern entrance to the Red Sea, and in the Indian Ocean, where important maritime trade routes pass. The US targeting could be compared, perhaps, to trying to exert global influence similar to that of Britain during the Pax Britannica.
But the difference between the “Pax Britannica” and the United States’ attempt to impose a similar model, a “Pax Americana”, is in the monstrously high costs given the fronts in which America is currently engaged.
Historical studies point out that, even during the Napoleonic Wars, when Britain was forced to confront and curb the potential rise of other European great powers, it maintained a strategy of “isolation” that helped it maintain its influence. Nigel Jones, one of the most important historians in this context, summed up British grand strategy in the nineteenth century, stating that “Britain, which ruled the waves of the world, was content to go about its business on the fringes of Europe and to concentrate his interests efforts and attention on wealth and prosperity and the support of Victorian industry. Her empire ruled a quarter of the globe,” while Europeans were busy fighting and balancing power among themselves.
Therefore, during the 19th century, British hegemony was not based on the “balance of power” strategy, which the United States of America seeks to implement today, trying to prevent any power from appearing on the world stage.
Ultimately, the strategy followed by the Biden administration, which is committed to supporting Ukraine against Russia, has rushed to contain China by establishing alliances in its geographic environs and surrounding it with military bases, in addition to costly engagement in the conflict. And now the Middle East, to defend Israel and consolidate it as a base, requires a significant economic effort, which perhaps the United States cannot pursue for long.
Antonio Albanese e Graziella Giangiulio
