With the ambitious “Make American Shipbuilding Great Again” (MASGA) project, Washington wants to revive US shipbuilding and strategically strengthen it through cooperation with South Korea and Japan. However, while American politicians see opportunities, Chinese state media warn of geopolitical dangers and economic disadvantages.
Strategic interests and geopolitical tensions
US Senators Tammy Duckworth and Andy Kim traveled to Seoul and Tokyo to discuss joint projects with leading shipyards. The aim is to build support and supply ships for the US Navy and expand repair capacities in the region. The Pentagon has requested $47 billion (€40.3 billion) for this purpose. In view of the fact that the USA only accounts for 0.1% of global shipbuilding capacity, while China currently has 53%, the question arises as to whether Washington can remain competitive at all without Asian partners.
According to reports in the Global Times and AP News, China sees a military dimension above all in the plans. If Korean or Japanese logos appear on ships used in conflicts against China, this could bring the countries directly into the sights of Chinese armed forces. Is the danger real or is it a politically motivated threat? One thing is clear: In a tense environment such as the Asia-Pacific, the very symbolism of such cooperation could create risks.
Economically, too, the question of sense and benefit arises. According to the New York Times, building ships in the USA takes considerably longer and costs almost five times as much as in Asia. Wouldn’t it be wiser for Korean and Japanese companies to invest their capital in their own locations rather than in the difficult US market? The Global Times argues that this could weaken domestic capacities, while South Korea becomes dependent on Washington.
Between economic benefit and strategic trap
However, there are initial examples of cooperation that works. Hanwha Ocean has already modernized a 41,000 t supply ship for the US Navy (USNS Wally Schirra), and Hanwha Group took over the Philly Shipyard in Philadelphia. Seoul also proposed to invest $150 billion (about €129 billion) in the American shipyard industry to gain access to trade advantages. Is such an investment a forward-looking move or a risky deal in which Asian technology is traded for tariff concessions?
China itself is also focusing on concentration. The merger of the two state-owned shipyards China State Shipbuilding Corporation (CSSC) and China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation (CSIC) has created the world’s largest shipbuilding company, which is putting pressure on its global competitors with a 21.5% market share and state-of-the-art military vessels such as aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines. As a result, its lead over the USA continues to grow.
The US Navy is also faced with an aging auxiliary fleet, while many new construction programs are one to three years behind schedule. Can the MASGA project really bring about a turnaround or will it remain a political symbol? For Korea and Japan, the question remains whether participation in Washington’s strategy will bring long-term economic benefits or whether they are being maneuvered into a geopolitical risk.
In the end, there is more at stake than shipyards and steel. The debate reflects the struggle for influence and security in the Asia-Pacific – and it shows how closely industrial policy, military strategies and international alliances are now interlinked.
