MERCHANT SHIPPING OMINOUS THREATS SEEN IN RUSSIA’S SEA CHALLENGE

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31277, 25 January 1967, Page 12

MERCHANT SHIPPING OMINOUS THREATS SEEN IN RUSSIA’S SEA CHALLENGE

(By

DESMOND WETTERN,

naval correspondent of the "Yorkshire Post")

(Reprinted from the "Yorkshire Post" bg arrangement)

By 1980 Britain will have taken second place to the Soviet Union as the world s largest ship-owning nation. Not only is this the aim of the Moscow planners—it is well within their capabilities, for Russia is now increasing her merchant fleet by one million gross tons a year.

In the five years from 196065 Russia’s position among the ship-owning nations rose from 11th to sixth place. Yet this tremendous achievement was by no means due entirely to the efforts of her own shipyards. Japan, Finland, France, Italy, West Germany and even Britain are among the countries outside the Communist bloc whose shipyards have been helping to build up Soviet maritime strength. Now many British and other Western shipowners are wondering just how long the West can afford to go on helping the Communist powers to cut our own throats. In the words of the late President Kennedy: “The sea is all around us. It is part of our lives. We must know about it. We must master it.” This is something that the Russians are acutely aware of and unlike the traditional m..ritime powers they are doing all they can to “know about” and “to master” the sea.

tury free enterprise British shipowners their motive is very far from simply making a financial profit. As far back as 1961 the Soviet Minister for the Merchant Fleet, Mr Viktor Bakaev, admitted that the gap between the fleet’s expansion and its earning capacity was widening all the time.

What the Soviet leaders have long realised is that the free use of competitive shipping is absolutely vital for the West. The entire North Atlantic Alliance is held together by its sea communications.

Already the American merchant fleet, due to high shipbuilding and operating costs, is diminishing year by year. British shipping is just about holding its position, making little forward progress. Much the same goes for the rest of the free world fleets. If, therefore, into this economically precarious situation Russia puts increasing numbers of ships operating at cut-price rates that no nonCommunist shipowners could possibly afford to match, the result will be inevitable—the steady decline of all nonsubsidised fleets. Eventually the point will be reached where Moscow could deprive any Power which fell out of favour of the means of importing or exporting vital commodities and foodstuffs.

Britain’s Former Role Their goal is nothing less than to assume the position in the world once held by Britain—namely to be the world’s principal carrier of goods. But unlike 19th cen-

Big Investment Soviet shipping expansion has, since the death of Stalin, taken a place in the first rank in the State’s planning. The scale of the organisation of the industry is something far surpassing that of any Western Power.

The investment In the shipping industry in the period 1959-61 was at an annual rate of well over fllO million. Since the average freighter built in a Western yard costs between £li million and £2] million this sum gives some indication of the vastness of the Soviet programme. State investment in sea transport now amounts to about one per cent of all Soviet Government investment each year. At the end of last year 75

per cent of all Soviet trade was being carried in Russian ships—a far higher percent age than that of British trade carried in our own ships. By 1965 there had been a 400 per cent increase over the 13,500,000 tons of exports carried in Soviet hulls in W5B To suggest as some British politicians do that there are enormous opportunities for developing East-West trade is nonsense, at least in the field of shipping. In the seven years in 19a.> to 1962 Soviet, oil exports increased from 5.8 m to 33.5 m metric tons. Few free-world nations could possibly match this.

This is but one export commodity in which the Soviet Union is making major increases in its shipments. What is perhaps more important is not so much the quantities of these exports but rather their role in the cold war.

Arms Shipments In recent years vast quant i ties of arms have been shipped to Cuba, North Vietnam, Egypt, Syria, India. Tanzania, Indonesia, and several African and Latin American countries.

An important factor which indicates that Soviet maritime expansion is not vital so much from an economic point of view as from a political one is the archaic condition of most Russian ports. Although according to their own classification Russia has 62 “major” ports, only two (Leningrad and Odessa) measure up to Western ideas of major ports. To mention Soviet oceanographic research and some of the “side lines” of the merchant fleet ranging from the training of naval reservists and the familiarisation with foreign ports, canals and rivers for regular naval personnel attached to the merchant fleet to straightforward espionage and snooping on Western naval exercises would fill a sizeable book Certainly in the field of oceanography the Americans have acknowledged Russia's lead in many areas. Russia now has at least 200 research ships at sea. If these activities were the greatest threat the West had to face from the Communist bloc at sea it would be serious but not deadly. But the main avowed aim of Russia's programme of shipping expansion, which at present means that two new merchant ships are joining the fleet every week, is to drive free world shipowners off the seas.

Influence On Freights

To quote the Minister for the Merchant Fleet, Mr Bakaev, again: “By playing an active part on the world sealanes, the Soviet merchant fleet will exert a decisive influence on the world level of maritime freight rates." As far back as 1963 the Shipowners’ Organisation of Hamburg stated in a report that freight rates from Baltic ports quoted by the Polish and East German State lines were 25 to 40 per cent below the Western shipowners’ conference rates and an East Get man line quoted a rate 42 per cent below those of Western lines for cargoes to the Middle East. Leaders of the British shipping industry have been unanimous in their warnings on the dangers of the increasing size of the. Soviet merchant fleet. According to Mr M. R Weeks, of the Liverpool Steamship Owners’ Association, it was “ironical” that the West should be helping Russia to attain her target of 3 merchant fleet of 10m tons by 1970. “Such an increase,'' he said, “in Communist tonnage would have gravely disturbing effects on the trade of the traditional maritime nations.” How much more grave " i ll be the effects by 1980 when the Soviet fleet is likely to have 20m tons of ships? Other British shipping leaders have also given clear warnings, including the past president of the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom, Mr R. R. Grout, who said three years ago that the Communist bloc might well in a few years’ time have the biggest merchant fleet in the world.

Firm Response Required

In 1964 the annual report of the North of England Shipowners’ Association, stated: “It would be foolish to ignore the planned growth of the Russian merchant navy, which represents a serious threat to the balance of the freight markets in the future." The challenge must be met if Western shipping and. ultimately, Western Europe s economic and therefore political freedom are to survive. It will mean cutting shipbuilding costs by improving management and ending unions’ restrictive practices. It will mean the suppliers of ships’ fittings cutting prices and above all accepting that delivery dates mean something. .. It will mean raising the standards of training of officers and men in our merchant ships and making the service a worthwhile career. It will mean a drastic oveihauling of our antiquated ports and the dock labour system. In short, it will mean sparing no efforts to cut the costs of shipping services while maintaining the highest quality of ships.