Page 296

REVISTA IEEE 11

296 Journal of the Spanish Institute for Strategic Studies Núm. 11 / 2018 and logistical facilities overseas. Not (necessarily) more than that56. To this effect, it is useful to remember that Mahan distinguished between colonies and «dependencies», rejecting the first option outright every time he looked to the future of the United States. In fact, Mahan felt uncomfortable when referring to the persistence of the old colonies57. On the other hand, the notion of «dependence» was better suited to the new reality in fieri that he was already predicting. Something similar to what China has been achieving over the last two decades with its rental of docks and the establishment of bases, but also along the lines of what the US did in in the past when the traditional empires were collapsing. So the arrival of raw materials and energy sources could be achieved through trade agreements or, simply, by displaying a position of advantage in order to benefit from market rules. It is striking that one of his most glowing praises is addressed to a seventeenth century English law, the Navigation Act. It merits our attention, I say, because we have seen that Mahan is, above all, a defender of private initiative and the free market, while that law had clearly protectionist overtones. Perhaps for this reason, some of his analysts have argued that Mahan hardly started out as an «agnostic» in the free market debate, although he admits that he finally embraced the liberal cause58. What was really happening? The Navigation Act was an attempt by London to curb Dutch momentum in sea transport. The Dutch offered the cheapest ports, so that their merchant ships were the most requested by third parties. In the seventeenth century, one of the nations on the rise, the Netherlands, was clearly winning the struggle with England for commercial leadership. Against this background, the Navigation Act only allowed access to English ports to merchant vessels operating under the British flag (wherever they were bringing the goods from) or commercial vessels flying any other flag, but on condition that the products transported in their holds were originally from the country that armed the vessel. Thus, the possibility of Dutch ships operating in English ports decreased drastically. Mahan defends this ruling, arguing that it was necessary to adopt «energetic legislative measures for the growth of commerce and the merchant navy of his country»59. Then, despite his pro free-market stance, he opts for combining —or even demanding— apparently contradictory measures when the ultimate goal is the defence of a state’s own business fabric. Another example of the Mahanian dialectic? Probably. What Mahan advocated just over a century ago could be compared, if not in its letter, at 56  HICKEN, Victor. U.S. History. People Who Helped Make the Republic Great. 1620-Present. Carson- Dellosa Publishing Co, 2006, p. 78; y ADAMS, John A. If Mahan Ran the Great Pacific War. Indiana University Press, 2008, p. 3. 57  BRADFORD, James C. Admirals of the New Steel Navy: Makers of the American Naval Tradition, 1880-1930. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 2013, pp. 48 y 69. 58  HOBSON, Rolf. 2002, op. cit., pp. 165-166. 59  MAHAN, 2007, op. cit., p. 124; MAHAN; 1897, op. cit., p. 43. http://revista.ieee.es

REVISTA IEEE 11
To see the actual publication please follow the link above