As I sit and ponder the geopolitical chessboard of our times, I find myself increasingly drawn to the waters that ripple between power and dominance. There is something primal about the control of the seas, an echo of ancient empires where naval supremacy dictated prosperity or ruin. For centuries, Britain’s Royal Navy epitomised this reality, ensuring maritime control and securing trade routes that underpinned the rise of the British Empire. From the victory at Trafalgar to the policing of international waters, the Royal Navy was more than a military force; it was the lifeline of a global power whose prosperity depended on the free flow of goods, resources, and information across the oceans. Its dominance maintained an order that allowed Britain to thrive, shaping not only British history but also the world’s maritime traditions.

Today, those ripples of maritime power have surged into waves, emanating from China's audacious moves in the Spratly Islands, the strategic leasing of ports like Darwin, and a covert grip on the Panama Canal. Unlike the Royal Navy's historical role, which was often framed as a guardian of global trade and security, China’s efforts form a web of maritime dominance designed to assert control and reshape the balance of power. These moves are not mere expressions of economic ambition but deliberate strategies to challenge Western influence, projecting power across critical waterways. The implications are profound, particularly for Taiwan, a flashpoint of modern geopolitics, and for the West, which now finds itself grappling with the erosion of the maritime order it once so confidently commanded.

The Spratly Islands: A Man-Made Fortress
China's transformation of the Spratly Islands is a masterclass in strategic foresight. What were once barren reefs now bristle with airstrips, radar systems, and missile launchers. By building artificial islands and militarising them, Beijing has created a forward-deployed fortress that dominates the South China Sea, a vital waterway through which a third of global maritime trade flows.

This is not merely about protecting trade or ensuring energy security for the Chinese mainland. It is about crafting a chokehold, a means to control or deny access to adversaries in times of conflict. Taiwan, the thorn in China's side, sits precariously under this shadow. In a hypothetical conflict scenario, the militarised Spratlys, coupled with China's formidable naval power, could cut Taiwan off from vital supply chains, particularly from Western allies like the United States.

The Port of Darwin: A Northern Foothold
The leasing of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese company for 99 years is another piece of this intricate puzzle. Australia, perhaps naively, handed over the keys to its northern gateway in what now seems a staggeringly short-sighted decision. While the lease is cloaked in the language of commercial logistics, it provides China with a strategic vantage point. The port offers not only economic leverage but also the ability to monitor and potentially disrupt military and commercial activities in the Indo-Pacific region.

The irony is glaring: one of America's closest allies allowed a geopolitical rival to establish a foothold in its backyard, unwittingly tightening the noose around Western influence in the Pacific.

The Panama Canal: A Silent Stranglehold
The Panama Canal, a vital artery connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, has been under indirect Chinese influence through entities like the Hong Kong-based Hutchison Whampoa. While not overtly state-controlled, the company's ties to Beijing are unmistakable, reflecting the nuanced yet pervasive reach of Chinese economic and strategic influence. The canal, once a symbol of American ingenuity and dominance following its completion in the early 20th century, now sits under a shadow of uncertainty. China’s presence at this critical chokepoint exemplifies its broader strategy of leveraging commercial ventures to gain strategic footholds, a practice that is far from coincidental.

This quiet control offers China an unparalleled advantage: the ability to disrupt one of the most critical maritime chokepoints in the Western Hemisphere. The Panama Canal is not merely a convenience for global shipping; it is a lifeline for international trade and Western military logistics. In the event of escalating tensions, China’s indirect influence could transform the canal into a bargaining chip, allowing Beijing to exert pressure on the West or even dictate terms in broader geopolitical negotiations. Worse still, a more aggressive scenario could see the canal used as a strategic roadblock, paralysing the flow of goods and military assets between the two oceans.

The ramifications of such a disruption would be catastrophic. Global trade, already fragile from economic uncertainties and regional conflicts, would face a bottleneck of historic proportions. Western nations, particularly the United States, would find their military logistics severely compromised, hampering their ability to project power or respond to crises. The strategic implications of Chinese influence over the canal cannot be overstated. It is no exaggeration to say that controlling the canal gives China a hand on the jugular of the Americas, a position of dominance that would have been unthinkable during the era of the Monroe Doctrine, when the United States proclaimed its hegemony over the Western Hemisphere.

The question is not merely one of economic leverage but of strategic foresight. If China can quietly encroach on a cornerstone of Western maritime infrastructure without overt opposition, what other critical nodes might it target next? The canal, long considered a neutral passageway fostering global connectivity, now risks becoming a weapon in the hands of a nation intent on reshaping the global order. The West must urgently recognise the gravity of this situation and recalibrate its approach to safeguard this and other critical chokepoints, lest it cedes control of the waterways that underpin its security and prosperity.

Trump's Greenland Gambit: A Layered Response
Amidst this intricate manoeuvring, Donald Trump's remarks about purchasing Greenland were dismissed by many as outlandish, even absurd. Yet, when examined through a strategic lens, there is a certain undeniable logic to the proposition. Greenland, with its vast untapped mineral resources and unparalleled geographic position near the Arctic’s emerging shipping routes, holds immense value in the evolving geopolitical landscape. As climate change opens new navigable waters in the Arctic, competition for control of these routes is intensifying. Greenland’s position as a gateway to the Arctic places it squarely at the centre of this new frontier, offering any controlling power the ability to influence trade flows, monitor military activity, and project strategic dominance in the region.

For the West, securing Greenland would provide a counterweight to China's growing maritime expansion and encroachment on critical waterways. China's Arctic ambitions, while less overt than its actions in the South China Sea, have been steadily advancing through investments in Arctic infrastructure, shipping routes, and partnerships with nations like Russia. By proposing to purchase Greenland, Trump signalled a recognition of the Arctic's growing significance, a move that, had it succeeded, would have bolstered the West’s ability to challenge Chinese and Russian influence in the region. Greenland’s potential role as a logistical hub for NATO operations and its rich deposits of rare earth minerals, critical for modern technologies, further underscore its strategic importance.

Similarly, Trump’s comments about securing the Panama Canal and, more broadly, fortifying Western alliances, reflect a shrewd awareness of the vulnerabilities exposed by China's actions. Critics of these remarks often focus on their perceived impulsiveness, but such criticisms overlook the deeper strategic undertones. The Panama Canal, as previously noted, is a critical chokepoint for global trade and Western military logistics. China's indirect influence over the canal through entities like Hutchison Whampoa highlights a troubling gap in the West’s control of its own vital infrastructure.

Trump’s vision, whether articulated with finesse or not, aligns with a broader imperative to insulate the West from external threats. His proposals reflect a long-overdue recognition of the need to reassert control over key geographic and economic chokepoints. In an era where China is rapidly building a web of influence that spans continents, the West cannot afford to ignore the strategic significance of regions like Greenland, the Panama Canal, or even Arctic waters.

Far from being rash or haphazard, these suggestions represent an attempt to address critical gaps in Western security and resilience. They point to a future where safeguarding strategic assets is not merely a matter of economic prudence but an existential necessity in the face of rising authoritarian powers. While the methods of achieving such security might be open to debate, the urgency and importance of the underlying objectives are clear. If the West fails to act decisively, it risks ceding not only influence but also its ability to defend its values and interests on the global stage.

A Clash of Maritime Visions
What becomes clear in this juxtaposition is a clash of visions. China is meticulously weaving a web of influence that simultaneously strangles its adversaries and safeguards its ambitions, while the West stumbles in a disjointed scramble to respond. The Spratly Islands, the leasing of Darwin, and the indirect control of the Panama Canal are not isolated incidents; they are integral parts of a cohesive, long-term strategy to project Chinese power far beyond its shores. This is a vision of dominance anchored in calculated investments, militarised infrastructure, and the expansion of maritime influence, one that leaves no chokepoint unconsidered.

In stark contrast, the West’s responses, such as Donald Trump's Greenland proposition, appear reactionary and fragmented. While there is logic to securing assets like Greenland or strengthening alliances, these actions lack the coherence and unified purpose seen in China’s approach. Compounding this weakness is the chronic underinvestment in Western maritime power. Successive Western governments have squandered vast resources on initiatives such as combating climate change, often with questionable results and managing unchecked migration, diverting critical funding away from naval capabilities. This neglect has left Western navies starved of ships and personnel at a time when China has been rapidly expanding its fleet, fortifying its naval power, and asserting dominance over critical sea lanes.

China’s growing maritime influence stands in sharp contrast to the West’s declining naval strength. Beijing has understood the timeless truth that control of the seas translates to control of trade, security, and influence. By investing heavily in its navy, constructing artificial islands, and securing strategic ports, China has ensured that it not only safeguards its own interests but also positions itself to challenge Western supremacy.

Meanwhile, the Royal Navy, once the envy of the world and the backbone of global maritime order, has been reduced to a shadow of its former self, emblematic of a broader decline in Western naval power. The United States Navy, too, finds itself stretched thin, tasked with countering China, supporting NATO, and patrolling global waters, all while facing budgetary pressures and ageing fleets.

The West must awaken to the reality that China’s maritime strategy is not merely about influence but about dominance. Addressing this challenge requires more than reactionary gestures; it demands a proactive stance. Securing critical maritime and terrestrial nodes, bolstering alliances, and directly challenging China's strategic advances are not optional but imperative. Restoring naval power, reinvigorating shipbuilding industries, and prioritising the defence of vital trade routes are essential steps. Failure to act decisively risks leaving the West increasingly vulnerable in a world where sea power once again dictates the balance of global influence.

Conclusion: A Call to Maritime Vigilance
As I reflect on this complex tableau, I am reminded that control of the seas has always been a determinant of global power. From the dominance of the Roman fleets in the Mediterranean, securing the empire's lifelines and trade routes, to Victorian England’s Royal Navy, which ruled the waves and ensured Britain's industrial and colonial supremacy, maritime influence has consistently underpinned the rise and maintenance of great powers. In the aftermath of World War II, the United States inherited this mantle, with its Navy becoming the guarantor of a liberal world order, ensuring open sea lanes and deterring adversarial ambitions. China's current actions, however, reveal a deliberate challenge to this historic reality, a long-term strategy designed to reshape global power dynamics in its favour.

Yet, as China builds its maritime power with precision and intent, Western leaders often find themselves hamstrung by political divisiveness and short-term thinking, trapped in a reactive cycle that allows Beijing to dictate the terms of engagement. Proposals like Donald Trump’s call to purchase Greenland or regain influence over the Panama Canal are often derided by critics as impulsive or unrealistic. However, such dismissals do a profound disservice to the larger conversation that urgently needs to take place, a conversation about countering China’s ambitions and reclaiming Western maritime dominance.

Those who dismiss these ideas should pause and reflect on the lessons of history. The seas have always been the stage upon which global power is contested and secured. Rome’s dominance of the Mediterranean, England’s Pax Britannica, and the United States’ post-war naval supremacy all stand as testaments to the unassailable link between maritime control and enduring influence. To mock or reject strategies aimed at bolstering Western sea power is to ignore the historical precedents that shaped the very order critics now seek to defend.

It is time to recalibrate. The West must move beyond fragmented reactions and embrace a cohesive, forward-thinking strategy to counter China's growing ambitions. Whether through securing Greenland’s strategic position in the Arctic, reclaiming influence over the Panama Canal, a critical artery of trade and military logistics, or re-evaluating deals like the leasing of Darwin, Western nations must recognise the stakes. These actions are not eccentricities; they are part of a necessary effort to shore up vulnerabilities and project strength in the face of a determined adversary.

The waters are rising, not just in the literal sense, but in the figurative swell of China’s ambitions. If the West does not act decisively, it risks being swept away in the tide of history. Just as Rome, Britain, and the United States once understood, it is control of the seas that will determine the next great power. To safeguard its future, the West must rise to meet this challenge, with unity, vision, and a firm grasp of the lessons of the past.

Read my book - “The Dragon's Gambit: China's Bid for Global Dominance and the Western Response “, it provides a detailed, multifaceted exploration and a critical examination of China's strategic ambitions and the global repercussions.