U.S. companies have learned much from the last port crisis and the shutdown of operations caused by worker strikes, which brought the Government’s Social Economic Council and the White House Supply Chain Task Force to the brink. The East Coast of the United States handles half of the country’s imports and exports through its ports. The supply chain was completely paralyzed, with all the consequences this entails for a major producer like the U.S. and its wealth-generating machinery. This situation has spurred government concern and initiatives toward a preventive market configuration in defense of the public interest. What happened exposed the vulnerability of a giant—the Achilles’ heel of any major producer: its port infrastructure, through which manufactured goods are exported, and raw materials are imported to keep its machinery running.
UNCTAD
The strategic importance of port infrastructure is nothing new, both for developed nations and for those aspiring to grow.
UNCTAD’s recent report, “Review of Maritime Transport 2024,” illustrates this clearly with a comparison of the efforts countries dedicate to maritime freight transport.
It is significant how developing states or emerging economies necessarily associate maritime transport, and therefore port infrastructure, with a path to growth, which is why they continue to invest in the development of large maritime infrastructures.
UNCTAD’s report adds the following recommendations:
- The urgent need to invest in resilient infrastructure as a key measure to minimize the impact of climate risks and conflicts.
- Diversification of shipping routes to reduce dependence on vulnerable maritime corridors.
- Greater international cooperation to monitor, track, and mitigate risks in critical hotspots, ensuring a secure flow of goods.
- The need to provide greater support to Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and Least Developed Countries (LDCs) to ease the economic burden of rising maritime transport costs, safeguarding food security and offering development opportunities for their populations.
MEASURES IN WASHINGTON
The U.S. has drawn lessons from the disruptions in its supply chains. U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy from Louisiana has introduced a maritime sector bill titled the U.S. Offshore Worker Fairness Act. This bill aims to create a level playing field for U.S.-flagged vessels and foreign-flagged vessels conducting offshore energy activities in American jurisdictional waters. It also proposes oversight of foreign-flagged ships and the sailors working on them. The law is protectionist in nature, primarily designed to safeguard U.S.-flagged vessels and their crews, closing legislative loopholes that disadvantage the national maritime industry.
The U.S. maritime industry—including its competitiveness and shipbuilding sector—requires a much greater boost to continue driving the economy. This has become a permanent topic in Washington, where proposals are being considered to strengthen an industry that must reclaim its potential while addressing national security deficiencies. Currently, U.S. shipyard production ranks a modest fifteenth worldwide, far behind countries like China, South Korea, Finland, and Japan. For example, inefficiencies in the national maritime supply chain have, at times, led the country to import crude oil and gas from third countries, despite being a top-tier producer.
A group of legislators, including Congressmen Mike Waltz, John Garamendi, and Senators Mark Kelly and Marco Rubio, published the Congressional Guidance for a National Maritime Strategy in April, outlining goals and principles for a national maritime strategy to address glaring deficiencies.
One specific proposal from the Kelly-Waltz report involves leveraging tools such as tax incentives, greater cargo preference, operational subsidies, and federal funding to expand the U.S.-flagged fleet. For the shipbuilding sector, there has been discussion of reforming environmental regulations and permitting processes to revitalize the national industry. However, these are largely proposals based on maintaining the status quo. To avoid falling behind in the future, bolder and more decisive measures are needed—ones that firmly commit to and prioritize this strategic sector. The world’s major economies have recognized this. Competing at this level requires deploying similar tools.
BRICS
The recent summit of BRICS—a political-economic association positioned as an alternative to the G7—was held from October 22 to 24 and was led by Russia and China. The group now has nine members and has considered adding fifteen more partner states to expand its global influence. In 2024, new members included Egypt, Iran, the UAE, and Ethiopia. In its current form, BRICS represents at least 40% of global trade and crude oil production.
This influence, however, depends on a continuous focus on the global and maritime supply chain, which is why this group of countries continues to promote the industry and modernize infrastructure. This applies both within their own nations and through significant investments in third countries, as seen in China’s policies in Africa and South America.
Being a major producer is not enough—without competitive and efficient means to market products, progress is limited. The efforts of large economies, especially during a turbulent period marked by numerous conflicts, must focus on strengthening the maritime-port industry to avoid being late to the future.
