In 1890, Alfred Thayer Mahan wrote a treatise called "The Influence of Sea Power upon History".¹² In this book Mahan argued that the prosperity of nations is built upon their power as seafarers. By "sea power," Mahan meant all of the powers by which nations were able to use the sea, including marine architecture, navigational ability and disposition toward the sea; in short, all of the strengths by which a nation could use the sea lanes that linked production centers to markets. Mahan emphasized the necessity of shipping capability in "sea control,"¹³ the control of the seas that lay at the heart of sea power.

　

In 1498, Vasco da Gama rounded the Cape of Good Hope to discover a trade route to India, ushering in an era of Portuguese advance into India and South China in search of Eastern products for trade. Earlier 1493, Pope Alexander VI had issued a papal bull to mediate between Spain and Portugal, which had begun to compete for newly discovered territory. This papal bull became the basis of the Treaty of Tordesillas of 1494, which ceded the territory in the Americas east of 46°37' to Portugal and all territory west of that meridian to Spain. While Spain searched for a route westward from the Americas toward Asia, Portugal achieved that goal when Vasco da Gama rounded the Cape of Good Hope. It was not until 1521 that Magellan reached the "Spice Islands," now known as the Moluccas, for Spain. When the meridian of the Treaty of Tordesillas was extended to the eastern hemisphere, it was found to cross Indonesia. Thus began a confrontation between two great sea powers, Spain and Portugal, for concessions in the East.

　

Scattered around Southeast Asia lay a number of countries that existed as a series of microcosms.¹⁴ In Ayutthaya, Palembang and Aceh, for example, concentric spheres of influence extended outward from a king at the center and came to an end when the king's power was exhausted. Within the circle of powerful people, a center of gravity existed, but the world outside of it was in constant confusion.¹⁵ Into the resulting power vacuum on the high seas sailed Portugal and Spain. Holland later rose rapidly to become a sea power in its own right, establishing the East India Company that soon captured a monopoly on the spice trade. After Holland, England marshaled its formidable naval strength to establish sea control in the Indian Ocean and open up sea lanes throughout Asia. This was the historical process from which Mahan derived his theory of sea power. This principle is the basis of the maritime strategy of traditional seafaring nations and the root of the problem of peace on the oceans.¹⁶

　

In the 20th century the United States took over from Great Britain the mantle of sea power, in the course of World War II and the subsequent Cold War. During this period, the oceans were pervaded by the sea power of great seafaring nations and the naval might of the superpowers.

　

With the conclusion of the Cold War, navies that had been active in seas around the world and had potential for acquiring sea power began refocusing on their own coastal waters, creating a power vacuum on the high seas. Whereas the traditional seafaring nations had carved out regions of exclusive control in the oceans, now a number of nations and groups participated side-by-side in marine shipping and fishing, giving rise to an increasingly borderless ocean environment. As a result, new dangers and threats arose that fit neither a great-war nor a Cold-War paradigm. Moreover, the signing of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea changed the legal framework on which the sea was to be used, bringing to the surface the antagonisms between coastal nations and traditional seafaring nations and between those who favored free maritime access and those who favored managed oceans. In tandem with rising demand for the food and energy resources of the sea, an entirely new factor of uncertainty arose with respect to security in sea lanes and fishing activities. Once again the seas were plunged into confusion.¹⁷

　

The following can be listed as dangers or threats that menace the stable use of maritime resources or threaten to destabilize the safety and security environment of the oceans.

　

Disputes between nations regarding movements for national unification or independence can escalate into military conflicts. Examples of scenarios that may threaten access to maritime resources are the standoff between China and Taiwan, the tensions on the Korean peninsula, strife between India and Pakistan and the status of the Spratly Islands. Internal disputes in countries harboring religious or ethnic differences, such as Indonesia and the Philippines, could result in an escalation to internal military conflict or the blockading of hub ports. But the threat that demands the most attention is the possibility of terrorism at sea. Although no hijacking incidents have occurred since the hijacking of the Achille Lauro by Palestinian gunmen in 1985, other types of terrorist attack have come to the fore since, such as a terrorist blast aboard the USS Cole in 2000 and attacks on patrol vessels by the Tamil Tigers. If a container vessel or oil tanker were to be hijacked, a hub port were occupied or destroyed or an LNG tanker used to attack a hub port, the political and economic fallout on a worldwide scale would be devastating. Piracy and other crimes at sea are also believed to be linked to terrorism in some cases. Finally, disputes between countries regarding access to marine resources hold the potential for escalation to military confrontation, as numerous countries advance into the oceans in search for energy and other resources.

　

The seas have long been regulated according to a simple legal convention distinguishing between territorial seas and high seas. Seafaring nations have prospered from the broad expanse of the high seas. The proclamation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea established the existence of exclusive economic zones (EEZs) and continental shelves for coastal nations, over which these nations can project their sovereign rights and jurisdiction, along with the concept of ocean management. The EEZs established by the Convention entrust coastal nations with sovereign rights and jurisdiction over environmental preservation, in order to foster sustainable development. However, many developing coastal nations assert their right to control shipping in these waters, which are currently freely open to international shipping. Such differences in viewpoint between coastal and seafaring nations, which extend to disputes such as "freedom of the seas versus "management of the oceans," "peaceful us e of the oceans" versus "naval activities," hold strong potential to create major problems for maritime security If the coastal nations' demands grow so excessive as to amount to an attempt to enclose the seas, the ocean could conceivably be blocked off into a series of EEZs, seriously impeding the development of international society and the international economy.¹⁸ Terrorism has some of the aspects of a struggle between the "haves" and the "have- nots," and the dispute between "free maritime access and "ocean management" is much the same.¹⁹

　

Many of the threats faced on our oceans today cannot be held at bay by the containment strategies followed during the Cold War. Except in the case of conflicts between countries, today's conflicts are asymmetric, and there is little incentive for self-restraint brought by the threat of escalation and the possibility of mutually assured destruction (MAD). It is time to focus on measures that are specifically effective against the problem at hand, which is conflict over the use of the sea. While the authorities labor to eliminate these threats, it is also important to take measures to ensure a secure environment on the seas. These include the fight against poverty and measures for equitable distribution of resources, as well as efforts to preserve the environment. Defense authorities need to change their awareness to accept the broader nature of the problem.

　

The creation of a sustainable civilization founded on sustainable development is the key to protecting the marine environment that controls the earth's ecosystems and supporting the peace on the oceans on which human prosperity depends. A new seafaring age demands the recognition of a new concept of security: that the marine environment and security at sea depend on the protection of our precious oceans. All of the nations and groups that use the oceans must recognize that environmental preservation and support of maritime peace exist in a reciprocal relationship that cannot be separated.

　

The civil war in Rwanda 1994-1995 shocked the world with the savage atrocities the tribal groups of this miserable country inflicted on one another. As the horrific conflict widened, it ultimately drew in neighboring Zaire (now Congo) and Tanzania, ending with the deaths of 500,000 to a million victims and the flight of over a million refugees. It is hard to remember today that this picturesque country, famed as the habitat of the mountain gorilla, was once called the Switzerland of Africa. In happier times, the Tutsi tended their herds in the pastoral lands of the east, while the Hutu farmed the fertile central areas. A tall mountain range in the west formed the border with Congo Until the 1950s, the population of some two million enjoyed a stable political milieu centered on rule by village elders. Relations between the Tutsi and Hutu were cordial, and marriage between the tribes was not uncommon. In the 1960s, however, the population began to explode. By the 1980s Rwanda's population had reached 6 million, by the 1990s, 8 million. Some observers argue that this surge was linked to the arrival of development aid from the developed world. Faced with demands from the donor countries that it modernize its political system, Rwanda scrapped the system of governance by village elders and introduced a democratic political structure. In order to profit from this system, both tribes found it necessary to increase their numbers. With the new-found prosperity from development aid, population growth accelerated, reducing the amount of arable land per person by one-third. Tribes began to migrate in search of farmland and food. Resources were ravaged, and pastoral and even mountain land was converted to agricultural use, which only accelerated the depletion of food stocks. When a Hutu was elected president, a band of Tutsis formed the Patriotic Front, from which point the confrontation grew much more serious. The national radio network, Hilltop Broadcast, began broadcasting the message, "Kill the Tutsis! Kill the Tutsis!" Hutus began to massacre the Tutsis, the Tutsis counterattacked, and a horrible civil war was underway. The painful lesson of Rwanda is a textbook illustration of how inappropriate development can lead to environmental destruction, and ultimately to the breakdown of peace.

　

An example of the same process in the opposite direction is found in Sudan. During its former days as a British colony, the north was an Islamic society, the south Christian, and no interaction between the two was permitted. Civil war broke out between north and south as soon as Sudan became independent in 1956. The environmental ruin caused by the civil war led to a crisis in the food supply, causing starvation among children and a massive outflow of refugees. Thanks to international food support and peacekeeping efforts, this thirty-year civil war came to a temporary halt. In the 1980s, however, the discovery of oil reserves reignited the confrontation as the lure of resources to plunder encouraged armed conflict. Military expenditures ballooned to three times their size during the brief hiatus in the civil war. In 1994, the fourth-worst heat wave on record unleashed a pitiless drought. Sudan and the donor countries supporting it were plunged into despair. In Sudan, then, a political vacuum led to war, which caused environmental devastation, leading to food shortages and thus a breakdown in development. Abnormal weather patterns were the final blow for this unfortunate country.

　

If we accept that large-scale use of fossil fuels has raised the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, causing an increase in greenhouse gases that has unleashed a series of heat waves around the world, the abnormal weather that ravaged Sudan is by no means confined there. It is a problem that crosses national borders, with the potential to damage the environment and peace everywhere.

　

If too much priority is placed on development, the environment deteriorates; if we focus too strongly on the environment, however, development may stagnate, creating poverty that threatens peace. Yet if we try to secure peace by placing undue emphasis on military solutions, the danger exists that environmental issues will be ignored, once again retarding growth. This is the "trilemma" of development, environment and peace.²⁰ If we neglect this trilemma, inappropriate development will degrade the environment, the despoiled environment will threaten peace; and the loss of peace and security will impede development. This downward spiral is a vicious circle known as the "degradation cycle."

　

In both human and economic terms, the toll taken by this cycle is monumental. According to an analysis by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) in 2001, the economic loss from damage to agriculture, loss of energy, damage to the ecosystem, water pollution and creation of environmental refugees will total US$304.2 billion by 2050 (see Table 1). Assuming that these losses aggravate the unequal distribution of wealth, the perceivedinjustice between rich and poor could foster an increase in terrorism. Considerable precedent exists for this: Sudan was formerly a principal base for the terrorist activities of Osama bin Laden. After the bombing of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the United States regarded a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan to be a chemical munitions plant and destroyed it with a cruise missile. It has also been reported in the media that Al-Qaida had transferred funds from Pakistan to Sudan.²¹

　

This degradation cycle now threatens to play itself out on a colossal scale in the world's oceans. The destruction of coral reefs from the reckless development of coastal areas is taking a grievous impact on coastal fisheries, while overfishing is depleting fish stocks and damaging marine ecosystems. As these examples attest, the threat is both real and imminent.

　

　

The coral reefs began to be threatened with annihilation in the 1990s. By the end of 2000, 27% of the earth's coral reefs are believed to have been destroyed, by a combination of the warming of the oceans and water pollution from the development of coastal areas.²² With the loss of these reefs came a staggering impact on biodiversity and the coastal fisheries. In Asia alone, a billion people depend on coastal fisheries for food like terrorism, the effects of environmental destruction show no respect for international borders.

　

The fishing industry can be divided into two types: the capture of fish at sea, or "trawling," and cultivation of fish in captivation, or "fish farming." In trawling, 50% of the industry catches the sustainable maximum, while a further 15% exceeds the sustainable limit, while a further 7% is already in a state of advanced depletion.²³ Fishing is an extremely important food source for humans, comprising 20% of our total consumption of animal protein. Demand for fish as a foodstuff is growing around the world. Currently standing at 92.5 million metric tons per year, this demand is forecast to grow to 120 million metric tons by 2010. Total catch, however, is moving in the opposite direction: Total catch from both trawling and fish farming in 1998 was 127 million-only 70% of the catch in 1980. A breakdown of these figures shows that 72%, or 91,440,00t, comes from trawling. Trawling expanded rapidly in the 1950s but ceased growing in the 1990s when it reached its sustainable limit of 100 million metric tons. Since 1997, the catch has shrunk considerably. In other words, all of the growth in fisheries has come from fish farming, while trawling has declined in inverse proportion to its buoyant demand. Water pollution and overfishing of the most valuable species, as well as discarding of bycatch and the attendant damage to the ecosystem, are all seen as factors in this decline.²⁴ Most migratory fish spawn in coastal waters, so the effect of water pollution in coastal areas is especially acute. As illustrated by the example of mackerel and sardine in the Sea of Japan discussed earlier, some species are already threatened with depletion.

　

　

This decline in fish stocks renders the trilemma of development, environment and security in the world's oceans more serious than ever.

　

According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 49% of the world's oceans are under the jurisdiction of coastal nations. A more accurate term for "deep-sea fishing" would be "fishing in other countries' EEZs." If the threat that coastal nations may enclose these seas for their own use ever comes to pass, tension will instantly increase in the maritime security environment. The oceans will then be free for all to plunder-the "freedom of the seas" will be nothing more than the "freedom to seize."

　

Development and the environment are easy to understand as a related set of problems, but peace and the environment must also be understood to stand in antithesis to each other in some cases. A new security framework is needed to conquer the trilemma of development, environment and security.