Category Archives: Global Analysis

A Geographical Breakdown of What’s Going on in the World

Global Analysis

Sea Control 149: Former Secretary and First Lady of the Navy, John and Margaret Dalton, Pt. 1

Leave a comment

By Travis Nicks

We were honored to speak with former Secretary of the Navy John Dalton and his wife, Margaret Dalton, about their service during the Clinton administration.

DOWNLOAD: Sea Control 149: Former Secretary and First Lady of the Navy, John and Margaret Dalton, Pt. 1

TN: Hi, and welcome to another episode of Sea Control. I’m Travis Nicks, the Vice President of CIMSEC, and on behalf of CIMSEC, I’m honored to be joined today by the former Secretary and first lady of the Navy, John and Margaret Dalton. Secretary Dalton served as the Secretary of the Navy from 1993 to 1998. In that time, Mrs. Dalton was instrumental in many quality of life improvements in our Navy, to include improvements in base housing, and has conducted many outreach efforts, even holding frequent visits to aircraft carriers for groups of congressional spouses. Mr. Secretary, Mrs. Dalton, thank you for joining us.

So starting off Secretary Dalton, you served as Secretary of the Navy from 1993 to 1998. Do you mind sharing how you became the Secretary of the Navy?

JD: Sure. I’ll be glad to. The reason I think I was considered to be Secretary of the Navy was because I had prior military service, and also prior service as a government official. I was president of Ginnie Mae, the Government National Mortgage Association in the Carter Administration. And after lunching in Dallas, and sat next to him, and got acquainted with him, and liked him, and decided to work in his campaign, and was actively involved in his campaign. When he was elected, he appointed me to be President of Ginnie Mae. That was my first government service. I really enjoyed it, and did that for two and a half years. And when they formed the Reelection Committee,– I was named Treasurer of the Carter-Mondale Reelection Committee. And I was a young man – I was 37 at the time. I was 35 when I got the Ginny Mae appointment, and 37 when I became the National Treasurer of the campaign. And we had, you know, children. When the seat became available on the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, after having worked in the campaign for about 6 months, I decided to ask the Chief of Staff of President Carter, Hamilton Jordan if I could have this seat at the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. I would still work on the campaign, but I, I’d taken a pay-cut to go into government, and another pay-cut to go on the campaign, and I have small children, and so I thought that would be a better way – better for me personally – so I was able to work that out and do that. After the election in 1980, when President Reagan was elected, I had another – well, on the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, the term didn’t end with the administration. It actually went through June of ’82. And so I stayed on for a number of months, and a headhunter approached me, and I took a job in San Antonio, Texas, and lived in San Antonio for twelve years in the savings and loans business, and then in the private equity business, and then back in the investment banking business – where I’d originally been when I was working for Goldman Sachs – when I met Jimmy Carter (Governor Carter).

But how I became Secretary of the Navy was, I was active in the Clinton campaign. I was active in the Democratic Leadership Council, which was the more moderate wing of the Democratic Party. And Governor Clinton was Chairman of the DLC, or the Democratic Leadership Council. So I got to know him through that. And when he announced his candidacy for president, I supported and was active in his campaign and when he was elected, because of what I’d done in the campaign, and the fact that I had served on active duty and been involved in the Carter Administration, so I had government experience.

Actually, what happened was, Henry Cisneros was Mayor of San Antonio, and he approached me about two weeks before the election and said who with their work in the campaign could serve adequately in the new administration. So I went there, and he said, “Would you please think about that and come see me, and tell me,” since Henry Cisneros was on the transition team. They were, eight or nine people that were on the Transition Committee before the election, and he was one of them. He solicited my advice about people who would serve in the administration. We talked a couple of weeks before the election, and he said, “We’re going to win, and you know, thank you for the names of these people that you think could serve well. But what about you?”

And I said, “You know, Henry, this is not a good time for me – personally, financially. And the only way I would go back into government service is if there were something meaningful that I could do.”

And he said, “I don’t know what you mean by meaningful, but the Cabinet is spoken for. Is there anything other than the Cabinet that you think you would be interested in?”

I said, “Yes, there is one job. The Secretary of the Navy.”

And he said, “I think you’d be great at that.” And he said, “Get me your resume. I’m going to go to Little Rock tomorrow, and I’m going to see Warren Christopher, who’s the chairman of the Transition Committee, and I’ll give him your resume.”

That’s how it happened.

TN: So you started off your time in the Navy at the U.S. Naval Academy and then with submarines, and then afterward, went to the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. How did the Naval Academy help you in your professional career? And how did those early formative experiences in your career help you become Secretary of the Navy, and then your career afterward?

JD: Well, it helped me a great deal. First of all, some background. I had an uncle who was a Navy hero in WWII. And, you know, I was a young boy – I was born in ’41, so, I was. But the first naval officer I ever heard about was my uncle, Roy, who actually won the Navy Cross, the Silver Star, and five Distinguished Flying Crosses. I mean, he was a genuine hero in WWII. And so my impression of the Navy was very positive from the get-go, and I wanted to go to the Naval Academy. You know, as a young man particularly, in high school.

But I didn’t get the appointment out of high school. That’s truly the only place I applied, and I was sure that was where I was going to go, and I had good grades, and I was on the student council – and all that kind of thing. So I thought I would get the appointment, but I didn’t. And so I went to LSU for a year, and that was a great experience. And I was active in government politics, was elected to the student government association, and president of my pledge class – that kind of thing. And then, I went to see the Congressman here again – what we’re talking about earlier, the personal aspect of seeing the decision-maker is key – and I went to see Overton Brooks, who was our Congressman, and told him that he had not given me his principle appointment the previous year, but I’d gone to LSU and done well, and I hoped that he would give me the appointment this year. And, I said, “It’s not something you’ll regret, because I will do well there.”

He gave me the appointment and I went to the Naval Academy. I didn’t get off to a great start. The first time they published an UNSAT list, my name was on it. And I went out for the crew team and got cut and so forth. But I made the varsity plebe team, in soccer and lacrosse, and enjoyed that. And, you know, early on was the first time they had the aptitude scores for our company. I was number one in our company. In my youngster year – sophomore year – they took a group to the Air Force Academy. At that time, everybody spent a weekend at the air army at West Point, but this was the first time anybody there had gone to the Air Academy, and I was in the group that was selected for that. And I was a group commander in the second class year, and went on a foreign exchange cruise to the Royal Navy my first class year.

All those experiences were very helpful to me, both in my active duty service and in the training that we had. And the leadership skills we learned, and so forth, were helpful to me – both in business, and when I became Secretary of the Navy.

TN: Over the last decade, rapid innovation in technology has been at the forefront of discussion topics in the maritime security community – particularly in the U.S. Navy. And many specialized organizations – DIUX, CNO’s Rapid Innovation Cell, Deep Blue, et cetera – have been established and disestablished by Navy leaders with the initial objective of speeding up innovation. The relatively slow speed of integrating innovative technology into the Navy has been heavily criticized – inside and outside the Navy.

You served as the Secretary of the Navy during the mass-adoption of the World Wide Web, the personal computer, the cell phone, and other new technologies. How did you achieve the high speed of integration of innovative technologies that occurred under your leadership in the 90s, and in your experience, what is the most effective way for a Navy leader to set up our institution to more rapidly integrate modern technology into things like personnel management, maintenance, and operations?

JD: Well when I was in office, we had some major challenges with respect to acquisition. And we thought that the system needed an overhaul. So we adopted what was called “acquisition reform.” Nora Slatkin was the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition – RDA – she was very good in that job. John Douglas came after her, and he also was very good.

The two major weapons systems that we had to deal with were the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the Seawolf submarine. That was the biggest aviation challenge that we had, and that system was very successful in that it came in on time, on budget, and underweight. And that was unusual in that typically, major new weapons systems cost more and were delayed and, there were a number of alterations that were having to be done on them. So I think the acquisition reform that we instilled was able to project and to perform, and that system – that weapon system – was very successful.

Similarly, another major weapons system was to get the third Seawolf submarine built because it was a political issue. The previous administration, the George H. W. Bush administration, had been opposed to building the third Seawolf, and President Clinton wanted to have it done. But it was a political football. And I thought that we needed to build it for the industrial base. I mean, we needed to have that submarine so that Electric Boat at New London, and also the submarines that were built in Newport News, would not lose all their people if we went two or three years without building a submarine. And we were able to prevail on that issue, and you might recall, going back politically – Clinton was elected in ’92, and in ’94, it was a big sweep from the standpoint of the Republican Party winning most of the seats. I asked some of my friends on the Hill about the possibility about getting the third Seawolf built. And, you know, Phil Gramm (R-Texas) and others that I knew from Texas and other states said, “You can forget it. You’re not going to build or pull that off.”

Well, I thought it was so important that we dedicated a lot of resources to get that third Seawolf built. And we were successful, and we ended up getting 75 votes in the Senate for it. That’s not the exact number, but anyway, it wasn’t close, because we really worked it hard, and it was important. And then once we got that done, the next big thing was the new attack submarine – which is the Virginia-class submarine. And that, too, was an important victory for the Navy Department. And similarly we moved forward with the V-22 in the Marine Corps, and that was a big weapons system that was controversial and had some early failures in terms of people being killed – testing it and so forth. Those were big weapons systems that were all important and all needed some leadership to get done, and we were able to get that done.

In terms of the internet and the other things that you mentioned, that was all late in my term. I can remember having a tutor come in to help me learn how to use a computer, you know, he’s coming in once a week. I was a novice – and still am in many ways. At any rate, some of the technology that you mentioned was late in my administration.

TN: Was it a priority to integrate computers and the internet?

JD: Yeah. I knew there were some people who were using email. But I remember sending my first email to Richard Danzig who was more savvy than I was with new technology. And I said something about something that he sent me, and he sent me an email back that said, “Welcome to cyberspace.”

TN: That’s pretty good.

JD: Yeah, he’s a great guy. He was a great undersecretary and also an outstanding successor.

TN: The two of you worked together – you and Secretary Danzig created programs like NAVFIT98, the eval and fitness report system that we still use today, and a series of programs that were created in the mid-90s and were used for more than a decade, and in some cases, for decades afterward. From a personnel standpoint, did it seem like it would be important to inject the internet and computers and software into personnel management and into communications?

JD: Absolutely. I think those tools that you mentioned were very important. And I think that what we emphasized the most in the five-and-a-half years I was there was people and the importance of treating people with dignity and respect. I mean, the emphasizing our core values of honor, courage, and commitment. When I came into office, we had some significant issues with respect to dealing with people. We had the Tailhook Convention, and the discipline of all that was on my plate. We had the cheating at the Naval Academy. We had the change in the culture of the Navy from the standpoint of gays in the military and women in combat. And both of those things happened within six months of each other – which was a big culture shock to the Navy. When I assumed office, I had been there two weeks before there was a major headline in the Navy Times which read, “Navy Moral at All Time Low.”

TN: Wow.

JD: I had a leadership challenge on my hand, and I think we answered the bell with respect to that. But personnel and evaluation reforms – doing all of that properly and using the technology that we helped developed was very important to evaluating people and making sure that everybody got a fair say.

TN: What was it like dealing with those kinds of situations in the Naval Academy and Tailhook? I mean, I guess Tailhook was very early on.

JD: Well, Tailhook was the biggest. It was the thing I spent more time on than, early in my tenure, than probably anything else. And it was – some refer to it as the biggest blow the Navy has taken since Pearl Harbor. It was on the front page three days out of seven, some kind of story dealing with Tailhook for a long period of time. And so you can see how the people would be concerned about morale, when you’re reading negative stories about your organization all the time, on the front page of the newspaper.

MD: It also happened before he got there.

JD: Yeah, it happened two years before I got there, but the discipline of it was my responsibility.

TN: I’m just wondering – we’re going through what they’re calling the Fat Leonard Scandal right now, and it sort of has the bell ringing of the Tailhook time, particularly because of the impact it’s having on promotion, and other things.

JD: You know, it’s a very similar problem.

TN: How did you maintain morale in the Navy at all levels – in the Pentagon and in the fleet?

JD: I made a big point of accountability and responsibility. I let it be known that everyone in a position of authority was going to be held responsible. If they were in charge with a duty with respect to people, they had to carry out those responsibilities. And accountability and responsibility, treating every individual with dignity and with respect, and living by our core values of honor, courage, and commitment, were key. And you know, if people didn’t measure up, they weren’t going to be promoted. I took a tough stand on that.

MD: He also made it a point to visit as many ships and bases as he could and to let them know that not only did he expect that from them, but he also let them know that he cared about them and he cared about the Navy and what they were doing and what they were contributing.

JD: And I really do feel like that, when I left five-and-a-half years later, I felt like the Navy was stronger, the morale was better. The other problem we had was how we’re going to drawdown from the military and spend this money on other things.

Well, as a result, promotion rates were much lower than the normal, and I remember a year – less than a year – after I assumed office, we went to the fiftieth anniversary of D-Day in England. And President Clinton came aboard a ship – an aircraft carrier – to talk to all the sailors. And I saw David Kirken before the President had gotten there (he got on board earlier), and he was a principle adviser to President Clinton. And he came to me. He said, “What should the President know about the status of morale of the Sailors?”

And I said, “We got a problem.” And I said, “The problem is, promotion rates are really behind. But the good news is, promotion rates this year are higher than they were last year, and promotion rates are going to be higher next year than they were this year. And within three years, we’re going to be back like we’ve always been with respect to promotion rates.”

And he said, “I want you to tell the President that when he gets here.”

And so, the president already had his remarks planned for what he was going to say, but David Kirken called him over and the three of us visited for a moment, and I told him the same thing. I said, “Mr. President, these are the facts. Because of the drawdown, promotion rates have really been slow. And as a result, morale is slow. But, the good news is…”

And so President Clinton, without a note, gets up and goes through his spiel and he says, “But before I leave you today, I want you to know this. I know you’re concerned about your advancement rates and your level of promotion. But let me tell you young men and women, your promotion rates this year are going to be better than they were last year. And your promotion rates next year will be better than they were this year. And within three years, you’re going to be right back like you’ve always been.”

Aboard, the troops just rallied – I mean, he was as good a politician. He just heard what I said and he walked out onto the platform, and brought it to life. He came into office as the – I’m sure he didn’t get 20 percent of the vote from the armed forces, personally. But he earned the trust of the leadership and ultimately, the rank and file because he was able to do stuff like that. I mean, he was a good Commander in Chief even though the typical armed services personnel didn’t think he was going to be. But I think he genuinely earned their trust, and he was a fine Commander in Chief.

TN: You spoke about the drawdown and the reduction in funding, and the peace dividend, and the subsequent, dramatic drop in budgeting for the Department of Defense and the Department of the Navy. Much has been made in recent months about the strain of life while deployed at sea, and how that conversation has been driven by the collision of USS John McCain and USS Fitzgerald recently. The Senate Church Committee was very interested in the work week for sailors – how sleeping is, and the short maintenance in training timelines, and some of that that has been attributed to the remnants of the peace dividend period. I’m just curious how you see the budgeting from the 1990s having played out over the last 20 years, the predictions that you and undersecretary Danzig, and the three CNOs that you served with– how those predictions have manifested over time.

JD: Well, I think it’s the civilian leadership’s responsibility to make sure that the military has adequate resources. And we went through the quadrennial defense review every four years and reviewed what the needs were, and it was our job then to articulate those needs to the Congress and to the public and to generate the necessary resources. And I think we did well at that. I think you always want more than you can get. But I think we did well from the standpoint of generating the resources. And then the other thing you talked about was training, and I think that is more the leadership of the military’s responsibility. We don’t get – civilian leadership doesn’t get involved in the actual training of people and the dealing of the amount of sleep and the kind of thing you talked about. But I tried to always emphasize the importance of our people and that means quality of life issues, and Margaret was very helpful with respect to those issues. I can tell you some stories, and she’ll talk to you about that as well. But we made quality of life a priority, and Margaret deserves a lot of credit for things she did with respect to that. I know at that time we had six months deployments. That was a hard stop. And the CNO had to come see me if a ship was going to be deployed longer than six months. And it didn’t happen very often because he didn’t want to come to talk to me about a six-month deployment being longer than that. And so, it rarely happened in the five and a half years that I was there. And it sort of set the tone, that the Secretary of the Navy was interested enough in the quality of life of the Navy and the Marines. That was a stipulation that the CNO had to get it cleared for me if there was going to be a deployment longer than six months. And that sort of mindset permeated the Navy Department.

TN: As recently as 2011, I know that there was one aircraft carrier that went on deployment for 11 months, then turned around and went back to sea very shortly thereafter for several months at a time – that’s just incredible to hear.

JD: People start voting with their feet when that happens. I mean, today, I don’t think we have a retention problem. But if you continue to do 11 month deployments and they become commonplace…people have families and obligations and those kind of deployments, that long, really deteriorates the morale of Sailors and Marines. They understand if there’s an exception and they have to do something for the national security and that’s what they’re there for, but by the same token, they have personal lives that require our looking out for them.

TN: How were you able to strike that balance? Sounds that like you made a decision that you would focus more on quality of life than operational tempo, and I’m just curious how that conversation played out with the admirals that are focused more on operational tempo.

JD: Well, I think part of it was, you know, what I inherited with Tailhook and the cheating scandal and the drawdown and so forth. I wanted to emphasize people. And you know, if the Secretary of the Navy is talking about that kind of stuff…the admirals know that I select who goes where, in terms of who is going to be in what job, and if they flop the things that I’m for, it’s not going to be in their interest. So I think the tone does get set at the top. Clearly, you work with the admirals and generals of the Navy and the Marine Corps and they know more about the operational aspects of it than I do. I’d been out of the Navy – I left in 1969, I became Secretary in 1993. I mean, that’s a good period of time to be away from the naval service. I think I had the ability to assess the situation and make good decisions.

TN: Do you feel like your time that you’d been in business in those intervening years between 1969 and when you became Secretary of the Navy helped you make decisions quickly? We’ve been talking in the last year or so about how this particular administration’s been talking a lot about the importance of having business practices interjected into government. And you did have that experience. You had a long career in business and then came into government again.

JD: Well, I think that having a business background is useful. I mean, we’ve had many successful Secretaries of the Navy and Secretaries from other services who were not in business, but I think the practicality of meeting a payroll and assessing a bottom line and having things work well are useful. But I mean, similarly there are high qualities and traits that come from being a lawyer and from other occupations as well. I mean, I think my business experience was helpful. I also think my prior government service was helpful. I also think having served on active duty was helpful. There are plenty of fine Secretaries who didn’t do those things, but I think they were helpful to me.

TN: So shifting gears just a little bit, one more question about the drawdown, the financial drawdown, and the reduction in budgeting. 1990 saw a consolidation of the defense industry from about 37 firms to five prime firms. And we ended up with Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing. I’m just curious how you feel like the consolidation of the defense industry has impacted the Navy.

JD: I mean, I still believe we have enough quality providers of resources, providers of equipment and operation needs that there’s enough competition from those five firms that (and they’re all quality firms and well-run organizations) and I’m not concerned about the consolidation. I think there’s adequate competition today.

John Dalton served as the 70th Secretary of the Navy from 1993 to 1998. 

Mary Dalton is Secretary Dalton’s spouse.

Travis Nicks formerly served as the Vice President of CIMSEC. These questions and views are presented in a personal capacity.

Cris Lee is Senior Producer of the Sea Control podcast. 

Arctic

What Will the Future Hold for Arctic Economics?

1 Comment

By Rachel Gosnell

Introduction

The economic potential of the Arctic is vast, but the complexities of the region must be considered when analyzing the future of the Arctic. While the region north of the Arctic Circle is commonly viewed as a singular expanse, the reality is rather different. Within the Arctic – and amongst the eight Arctic nations – there exists noteworthy similarities but also tremendous variations. Indeed, the Arctic is a diverse part of the world that would be best characterized as several different subregions, all with unique resources, populations, accessibility, geostrategic importance, and challenges. It is critical to analyze economic drivers and political factors across the High North in order to evaluate the economic potential of the region, understand national security interests, and develop appropriate Arctic policy.

A Challenging Environment

One constant throughout the Arctic region is the hostile climate. Record setting cold, ice-covered waters, rapidly emerging storms, and high winds define the region. The warming trends of the High North, which the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) note are about double the rate of global warming trends, are of such a magnitude that the pace of sea ice decline and surface ocean warming is unprecedented. This warming is contributing to an alarming decline in ice coverage at sea and permafrost ashore. The warming trends are forecasted to continue at an increasingly rapid rate due to the albedo effect, making Arctic weather more unpredictable as the likelihood of fog, storms, and even ice floes rises in upcoming years. All Arctic states must confront these challenges and share a common interest in conducting research to better understand the scientific trends that are emerging in the region.

The majority – nearly half – of the Arctic’s four million inhabitants live in the Russian Arctic, with the largest communities located in Murmansk and Norilsk. These cities dwarf the largest comparable North American communities, though population trends indicate a slight shift toward growth in the Alaskan and Canadian Arctic. Yet the Arctic population in total is predicted to experience only a slight upward growth in the upcoming decades, with just a 4 percent growth rate predicted through 2030. When compared with the global growth rate projection of 29 percent over the same period, it becomes clear that the region will not becoming a booming source of labor. Indeed, the Business Index North 2018 report notes that many cities in the Arctic are confronting challenges stemming from the loss of the region’s youth – who move south in search of education and jobs – and a gender imbalance. Further, as the Arctic warms, attracting interest to the region, the indigenous communities are facing new challenges. Thawing permafrost is causing damages to infrastructure as the ground becomes less stable. Developing new infrastructure to support economic development will require innovative approaches in a region not experienced in such issues. The logistical difficulties of transporting building materials and expertise will further compound the issue. 

The warming trends, however, will certainly enable further economic activity in the region. Diminishing sea ice coverage is enabling greater maritime traffic. However, it remains unlikely that the northern routes will become competitors of the Suez Canal despite the difference and significantly shorter distance (approximately 4,700nm) from Northern Europe to East Asia that amounts to a decreased transit time of 12 to 15 days if weather conditions cooperate. Yet of the primary identified shipping routes through the Arctic – the Northern Sea Route (NSR), Northwest Passage (NWP), and Transpolar Route (TPR) – only the NSR will have extended periods of opening through approximately 2025. 

Map of the Arctic region showing shipping routes Northeast Passage, Northern Sea Route, and Northwest Passage, and bathymetry (Wikimedia Commons)

New Opportunities 

Shipping companies and countries alike are exploring the potential new trade routes. Putin has exclaimed that the Northern Sea Route will rival international trade lanes and indeed, there has been an increase of vessel activity in the region. In 2017, the Northern Sea Route Administration (NSRA) issued 662 permissions to vessels for navigation along the NSR, though only 107 of these for foreign (non-Russian) flagged vessels. During that year, the NSRA notes that 9.74 million tons of various freights were transported by vessels, though mostly between ports located along the NSR. Indeed, in 2017, there were only 24 vessels and 194,364 tons of cargo that transited the duration of the route – much less than the record high in 2013 when China’s COSCO and others sent cargos through to explore the possibility of a maritime route. That year, aided by exceptional weather conditions, 71 vessels and 1.36 million tons of cargo transited the Northern Sea Route. Yet this still pales in comparison to the Suez Canal traffic, which saw more than 17,600 vessels and 1.04 billion tons of cargo in 2017.

Weather and vessel size limitations – due to reduced water depths and widths limited to icebreaker accompaniment – will reduce the efficiencies of the commercial shipping industry, which values economies of scale and the just-in-time shipping model. Arctic shipping in its current state is not yet reliable enough to adhere to these requirements, although when the Transpolar Route opens it may become more appealing. China has already looked northward to link the “Polar Silk Road” to its broader One Belt One Road Initiative. Yet weather will remain a challenge, with unpredictable ice floes moving into vessel routes, harsh storms, and cold operating temperatures. The International Maritime Organization’s Polar Code was a solid effort to improve safety and establish training and operating standards for vessels in the Arctic, but it will likely need continuous updates to remain relevant. International coordination on Arctic maritime safety and emergency response will be critical to ensuring the prevention – or expeditious response – of a maritime crisis. Given the fragility of the environment, hostile conditions, and dearth of emergency response capabilities in the Arctic, cooperation will be critical to the future.

Another significant economic driver for the region is the abundant presence of energy both on shore and within the exclusive economic zones of the five Arctic coastal nations. Several countries have already submitted claims to further extend their claims under the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. This includes a number of overlapping claims, to include the Lomonosov Ridge – and the North Pole. Although the United States remains the sole Arctic nation that has not ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) it appears that all Arctic nations will submit claims in accordance with UNCLOS. Yet the review of such claims make well take years due to the backlog of the Commission and the complexity of the review process. Until then, there remains a potential for disputes over economic resources, although Norway and Russia resolved the biggest dispute in the region peacefully in 2010. Currently the largest disputes in the Arctic are between the United States and Canada.

While oil and gas reserves are still unknown, it is estimated that the Arctic may hold nearly one-third of the world’s natural gas and thirteen percent of global oil reserves. Yet costs of exploring, developing, and extracting these resources are very high given the harsh environment, limited infrastructure, and difficulties posed. Given the current market prices, there is limited interest in pursuing these reserves in North America, though Norway and Russia are continuing development in the Barents and Kara Seas. The Chinese Nanhai-8 rig made an April 2018 discovery that may rank the Leningradskoye field as one of Russia’s largest natural gas fields. Indeed, China has also invested in the Yamal LNG project, which has ownership of 50.1 percent by Novatek, 20 percent by total, 20 percent by China National petroleum Company, and 9.9 percent by the Chinese Silk Road Fund. Production officially began in December 2017 and officials predict an annual production of up to 360 billion cubic meters of gas. The new Christophe de Margerie class of icebreaking LNG carriers – projected to be a total of 15 vessels at more than $300 million apiece – has commenced deliveries from Yamal to Asia. While the transit shipping of cargo may not be viable for decades, it is clear that Russia is intent on using the Northern Sea Route to ship commodities to market, albeit on a small scale when compared to the global maritime industry. Overall production of Arctic energy reserves will likely remain limited in the near future, unless the price of oil climbs significantly. Other sources of oil and gas – to include shale and using newer technology on older fields – will continue to remain a more economical option.

Mineral resources are also found in vast quantities throughout the Arctic, with all Arctic nations except Iceland possessing significant mineral deposits. While some new deposits are being revealed as ice coverage melts, it is likely that development in the near term will continue to focus on existing mines. It is predicted that infrastructure to these mines and areas will steadily be improved to permit future access.

Changes in climate are also likely to result in increased fishing in the Arctic. While there is little data on exact sizes of Arctic fishing stocks, it is likely that fish will continue migrations northward as the waters warm in the south. International fishing fleets will follow these fish, and the level of illegal and unreported fishing will likely rise due to the challenges of monitoring the vast region and lack of comprehensive maritime domain awareness. Yet this is also another opportunity for the Arctic coastal states to work together, in regulating and monitoring fishing. Likewise, the regulation of tourism in Arctic water – and the establishment of clear safety and emergency response protocols – will require cooperation from the Arctic states as the numbers of tourists rise. Indeed, the 2016 and 2017 Northwest Passage transits of the Crystal Serenity cruise ship and 1,800 passengers (900 guests) highlight the importance of developing both regulations and crisis response procedures as the adventure tourism industry continues to grow.

A final economic factor in the Arctic will be foreign direct investment. To date, the Arctic has received significant levels of FDI, with China being the largest source at an estimated $1.4 trillion invested into the economies of the Arctic nations from 2005-2017. Concerns arise over the potential for externalities associated with this investment, particularly given China’s record on labor and environmental issues. China’s recent Arctic White Paper establishes that China will continue to seek investment and other economic opportunities in the region. 

Conclusion

The Arctic is brimming with economic potential. Though the population will continue to be a small fraction of the global population, the region has significant natural resources and potential as a maritime trade route. With an annual economy presently exceeding $450 billion, it is likely that the region will experience further growth as the Arctic becomes increasingly accessible. Yet Arctic states must carefully regulate this growth in order to ensure protection of the environment, indigenous peoples, and their own strategic interests. This will further require significant cooperation amongst the nations of the High North – and those with interests in the region – in order to ensure the development and adherence to protocols and regulations that guide economic development. 

Rachael Gosnell is pursuing doctoral studies in International Security and Economic Policy at the University of Maryland, with a focus on maritime security in the Arctic. She holds a MA in International Security Studies from Georgetown University, a Masters in Engineering Management from Old Dominion University, and a Bachelors of Science in Political Science from the U.S. Naval Academy. She currently teaches Political Science at the U.S. Naval Academy. All views expressed are her own and do not reflect the U.S. Department of Defense or the U.S. Naval Academy.

Featured Image: Helicopter view of U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Healy (bottom left) stopped in the Arctic Ocean as Canadian Coast Guard Ship Louis S. St. Laurent (top right) comes alongside it. (Jessica K. Robertson/Public Domain)

Indo-Asia-Pacific, South America

Taiwanese Navy Friendship Flotilla Visits Latin American and Caribbean Allies

1 Comment

The Southern Tide

Written by W. Alejandro Sanchez, The Southern Tide addresses maritime security issues throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. It discusses the challenges regional navies face including limited defense budgets, inter-state tensions, and transnational crimes. It also examines how these challenges influence current and future defense strategies, platform acquisitions, and relations with global powers.

“The security environment in Latin America and the Caribbean is characterized by complex, diverse, and non-traditional challenges to U.S. interests.” Admiral Kurt W. Tidd, Commander, U.S. Southern Command, before the 114th Congress Senate Armed Services Committee, 10 March 2016.

By W. Alejandro Sanchez

A three-ship training flotilla belonging to the Republic of China (ROC/Taiwan visited Central American and Caribbean states as Taipei strives to maintain close ties with regional allies. Taiwan regularly sends high-ranking defense officials and flotillas as part of goodwill initiatives in the Western Hemisphere, these initiatives will be even more important as the Dominican Republic announced at the end of April that it would sever relations with Taiwan and establish them with the People’s Republic of China.

 Friendship Flotilla 2018

Taiwan’s friendship flotilla No. 107 (Flotilla de la Amistad in Spanish), is comprised of “Pan Shi, a modern and sleek Fast Combat Support Ship, Pan Chao, an older, U.S.-designed frigate, and Kuen Wing, a more recent, French-made stealth frigate,” according to AFP. There are around 800 personnel on board in total, including an unspecified number of cadets from the ROC Naval Academy who are utilizing the voyage to learn how to operate in the high seas.

The flotilla commenced its training voyage by first visiting the Marshall Islands; while in the Western Hemisphere it visited the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua. The local and Taiwanese media have covered the visit during each port call. For example, the  Nicaraguan newspaper El Nuevo Diario has noted that the last time a Taiwanese flotilla visited the Central American country was in 2016 while other outlets mentioned that this is the sixth time that such a visit has occurred.

Meanwhile the Minister of Defense of El Salvador, Munguía Payés, reportedly praised bilateral relations, stating that “the armed forces of El Salvador and of Taiwan … are and will always be an important factor not only when it comes to the internal security of our respective nations but also supporters of development and guarantors of democracy.”

Taiwan, China, and Latin America

Even with recent advances in naval technology and the ability to resupply at sea, it is still necessary for vessels traveling far from their nation’s territorial waters to be allowed to dock at friendly ports and conduct exercises with friendly naval forces from other nations. The problem is that Taiwan is running out of ports in the Western Hemisphere to dock its naval platforms and engage in constructive naval initiatives with friendly forces as regional governments switch from recognizing Taipei to Beijing. As previously mentioned the DR switched at the end of April, Panama switched in 2017, while Costa Rica did the same a decade ago, in 2007. The DR’s switch is somewhat embarrassing to Taipei, as the flotilla docked in Santo Domingo in mid-April, only to have the Dominican government switch to Beijing two weeks later.

While Beijing is gaining new allies in the Western Hemisphere, Chinese naval presence in Latin America and the Caribbean is pretty limited: a destroyer Shijiazhuang and the supply ship Hongzehu visited Chile in 2009; four years later, destroyer Lanzhou and frigate Liuzhou visited Argentina in 2013. Additionally, China’s Peace Ark (866 Daishan Dao), a Type 920 hospital ship that is operated by the People’s Liberation Army Navy, has visited the Western Hemisphere as part of “Harmonious Mission 2011” and “Harmonious Mission 2015.” Nevertheless, if more regional governments recognize Beijing (and there are constant rumors about which will be the next country to do so), and as Beijing seeks to project its naval presence well past its borders, there may be a larger Chinese naval presence in the Western Hemisphere in the coming years.

Rear Admiral Wang Fushan (third from right), deputy commander of the North Sea Fleet of the Chinese Navy, holds a meeting with officers from the Chilean naval forces aboard the Chinese destroyer Shijiazhuang, in Valparaiso. (News.cn)

The Flotilla in Context

The visit of the three-vessel Taiwanese flotilla in itself is not meaningful as Taiwan does not have bases in the Western Hemisphere, nor does Taipei have some kind of collective security-type defense treaty with regional countries. In other words, this visit does not signify that Taiwan would come to the aid of one of its regional partners, should one of them be attacked by a third party. Hence, the international media has placed the visit in the context of Taipei-Beijing and Taipei-Washington relations; for example Reuters published a piece titled “Taiwan warships drop anchor in Nicaragua amid sinking ties with China,” while the Strait Times titled its own report on the subject, “China demands halt of U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, as island stresses Central America ties with navy visit.”

Additionally, given ongoing tensions with China, there have been a number of reports about the Taiwanese Navy undergoing  a modernization process to obtain new platforms. There have been similar discussions in Washington regarding what kind of weaponry should the U.S. sell Taiwan. It is worth noting that in 2017 the Taiwanese Navy received two decommissioned Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates but ongoing Washington-Beijing tensions seem to hint that more modern equipment (including submarine technology) could be sold to Taipei as part of ever-changing geopolitics in Asia.

While the recent visit of a Taiwanese flotilla will not affect Central American or Caribbean geopolitics, its use is more symbolic, as it demonstrates that the Asian nation strives to maintain diplomatic relations with its remaining friends in the Western Hemisphere. Taiwan’s naval diplomacy, unlike similar initiatives by other countries, is not so much about maintaining cordial defense relations, but maintaining diplomatic relations. Countries like El Salvador and Nicaragua still recognize Taiwan, but the recent loss of DR, which occurred right after the flotilla visited the country, is an example that such initiatives, defense and others, must be constant.

W. Alejandro Sanchez is a researcher who focuses on geopolitical, military and cyber security issues in the Western Hemisphere. Follow him on Twitter: @W_Alex_Sanchez.

Featured Image: Nicaraguan students wave Taiwanese flags to welcome three Taiwanese Navy warships at Corinto port, some 149km north-west of Managua, on April 9, 2018. (Photo: AFP)

Europe, History

Warship Diplomacy: British Intervention in the Baltic from 1800-1801

Leave a comment

By Jason Lancaster

Setting the Scene

In 1801, it seemed as if Britain had made the entire world her enemy. Her allies had dropped by the wayside, Spain had swapped sides and allied with France, Austria was defeated, and Russia, under Tsar Paul, schemed to divide Europe between itself and France. Three coalitions formed against Republican France had already collapsed, leaving Britain friendless and alone. Yet, Britain fought on, alone. Britain relied heavily on naval stores, which came out of the Baltic; supplies such as fir trees for masts and spars, hemp for cordage, and tar and pitch. As the French revolutionary armies swept across Europe, borders changed and the number of ports Britain had to blockade increased, stretching the Royal Navy to the limit and further increasing the requirement for Baltic naval stores. Merchants from overrun nations transferred their cargos and vessels to neutral flags, such as Denmark and Sweden. As a result of this, the merchant marines significantly increased after the wars broke out in 1793.  Many of the ships carried legitimate cargos, but some carried contraband. However, to a nation fighting for its life, all goods going into an enemy port could be constituted a threat. As the struggle at sea intensified toward the end of the 1790s, the need for the Danes to protect their convoys from privateers, as well as the Barbary pirates, increased. Convoys escorted by Danish warships involved themselves in several naval skirmishes with British blockading squadrons in 1798, 1799, and 1800. These skirmishes resulted in the British seizing Danish convoys. The seizures led the Danes toward reviving the old League of Armed Neutrality, which had last formed in 1780 to protect the Baltic Nations’ ships during the American Revolution and to protect merchant vessels from belligerent privateers.

Tsar Paul was happy to help revive the League. He had recently fallen out with the British over the island of Malta. The Swedes and Prussians also joined the League. The formation of the League was a threat to British security. Britain’s fleet protected the island from invasion. Anything that jeopardized her access to Baltic naval stores was a threat. Therefore, a Baltic coalition formed around a hostile Russia could only be interpreted as a threat. His Majesty’s government decided that the best way to disrupt the League was by striking out at the weakest link in the Alliance. Britain demanded Denmark leave the League. When she refused, Britain prepared a fleet to remove Denmark from the League by force. 

The Creation of the League of Armed Neutrality

As Britain’s allies were defeated and dropped out of the conflict, Britain’s struggle for naval supremacy began to yield results. The battles of Cape St. Vincent in 1797 and Aboukir Bay in 1798 had defeated the Spanish and French navies and left them to regroup and refit. Britain controlled the seas. With naval superiority, Britain could blockade French ports and enforce restrictions on neutral ships. Some ships flew Danish flags as a convenience. The registration and flag were from Denmark, but little else was Danish. In reality, many were former Dutch merchant ships with Dutch cargos and crews.1 This was especially prevalent amongst the “Danish” ships bound to and from the Dutch East Indies. In 1797, 1798, and 1800 British ships sighted Danish Convoys and compelled them to heave-to. However, the Danish escorts refused to allow the British frigates to search the convoy for contraband goods. On July 25, 1800, the British frigates Nemesis, Terpsichore, La Prevoyant, and Arrow – all of 40 guns – and Nile – a small lugger – found the Danish frigate Freya escorting a convoy of six ships. Captain Baker of the Nemesis sent a boat to the convoy to search for contraband, however, the Danish Commander replied, “that if he attempted it he would fire into the boat.” Captain Baker lowered his boat and the Freya opened fire on the boat, missed it, and struck the Nemesis killing one of her crew. With this, the Nemesis gave the Freya a broadside, and “a most spirited action took place, which lasted for about twenty-five minutes, at the end of which time the Danish frigate, being much crippled in her masts, rigging, and hull struck her colours.” The British ships escorted the Freya and her convoy into the Downs to await the adjudication of a prize court. Regulations set down in 1673 stated, “When any ship met withal by the Royal Navy, or other ship commissioned, shall fight or make resistance, the said ships and goods shall be adjudged lawful prizes.” The prize court ruled that, “free ships make free goods,” but only to a certain extent, and that belligerent powers do have the right to “[ascertain] whether the ships are free or not.” Many Englishmen thought that the Danes and the Swedes were aligning themselves with the French by going out of their way to force engagements with the British over the convoy. The British insisted that the privilege “of visiting and searching merchant ships on the high seas, whatever be the cargoes, whatever be the destinations, is an incontestable right of the lawful commissioned cruiser of a belligerent nation.”2 The British had to insist on this steadfastly, otherwise, their entire blockade of France and her satellite republics would have been futile. Food, weapons, and supplies for her army would find their way into French ports in Danish and Swedish bottoms. If the French and Dutch received the naval stores that the British blockade denied them, then the Franco-Dutch fleets could come out and fight the British fleet, possibly defeating them and invading England.             

The British claimed to have the right to search neutral vessels for contraband, while the Danes insisted that neutral ships meant neutral goods. With overpowering maritime supremacy, Britain was in a far better position to dictate policy than Denmark. Despite her small size and stature, Denmark was not without recourse. She made overtures to Russia, Sweden, and Prussia to recreate the old League of Armed Neutrality. Each of these countries had different reasons to revive the League. Sweden and Denmark desired to protect their convoys from British searches and defend their idea of neutral rights, while Tsar Paul of Russia coveted British possession of Malta. Prussia was the most apathetic to joining the League, forced into it by the diplomatic wrangling of Russia and France. Prussia was very reluctant to do anything for the League, since she had little maritime commerce of her own, and felt threatened by borders with both France and Russia. In addition to convoy protection, Sweden coveted Danish Norway. The members of the League agreed to escort convoys with larger combined forces. Instead of a national frigate or two, the Northern League would escort convoys with a combined squadron of several ships of the line, while a fleet of 10 to 15 ships of the line cruised in the North Sea.3

The British viewed this armed League arrayed against them and proceeded to neutralize the Northern League’s threat. William Pitt, the Prime Minister, remembered what had happened when his predecessor, Lord North, failed to neutralize the threat of the League in 1780 – his government had fallen in 1782. The Dutch, Swedes, Danes, and Russians managed to form their convoys and protect their freedom to sell naval stores to Holland, France, and Spain. As a result, the British met well equipped Dutch, Spanish, and French fleets across the world, from Jutland to Ceylon. At the Dogger Bank in August, 1781, the British and Dutch fought an indecisive, but bloody battle. The seven Dutch ships remained in line, but the British fleet of seven ships of the line bore down on the Dutch and crossed through their line. However, Admiral Hyde Parker’s fleet failed to break the Dutch line. Admiral Parker could not reform his ships into line and the engagement ended.4 To prevent a repeat of the 1780 League, British national security demanded the dissolution of the 1800 League of Armed Neutrality by whatever means necessary.

Diplomatic Efforts

Denmark did not desire to go to war. On the contrary, the Danish Foreign Minister, Count Bernstorff, desired nothing more than to remain neutral in a world caught in the flames of world war. Count Bernstorff hoped the recreation of the League would “not be productive of any more serious consequences [than] those which had followed the convention of 1780.” However, Lord Drummond, the former British Minister to Denmark, reminded Bernstorff, “the circumstances of the times rendered the present alliance of the Northern Powers infinitely more hostile to England than that which had taken place.” Britain’s failure to neutralize the previous League had led to disastrous results in the Atlantic. Britain lost naval supremacy and suffered defeats at sea, one of which led to the Franco-American victory at Yorktown. Britain had to contend with Spanish, French, Dutch, and, to a lesser extent, American warships in a global war. These nations harassed the British while they were busy guarding the English Channel from invasion fleets, protecting the naval stores convoys from the Baltic Fleet, and fighting a major land war in North America.5 

Not all British politicians were for directly attacking the Armed Neutrality, despite the fact that it was perhaps the best and only option available to prevent them from entering Napoleon’s camp. Mr. Charles Grey, MP, feared that war with Russia would,

“Give to France, as allies, the fleets of our new enemies. From Archangel to the Tagus, and from the Tagus to the Gulf of Venice, there will not be a single friendly port out of our own possessions where a British fleet can take shelter…. Will it then be possible for our navy, with all its skill, to stretch along such an extent of coast?”6

The prevention of French control from Archangel to Venice was precisely the reason why Britain had to act against the Armed Neutrality. “Free ships with free goods” would accomplish nothing except enabling the French economy through neutral shipping. In hindsight, it is easier to say this than it would have been to act upon such notions in 1801. Nevertheless, the only way to disarm the Northern League was by force of arms. Most reports of the day said that it would require only twenty British sail of the line to blockade the Baltic Sea. By blocking the passage out of the sound, the League would be forced to come to terms with Britain, for lack of any way to trade with the world. Alternatively, a bold admiral could destroy the Danish, Swedish, and then Russian fleets piecemeal, as was the original plan of Lord St. Vincent and Lord Nelson. Tsar Paul resented the British occupation of Malta. Tsar Paul’s Francophile tendencies combined with Malta’s strategic location meant that they were reluctant to surrender the island to Russia. Especially since it would give Russia a warm water port in the center of the Mediterranean at the very moment Russia negotiated with the French.

The British Attack

The British decided the easiest way to destroy the Northern League was to remove the weakest link. Denmark was that link. Denmark was fearful for her dominions: the Duchies of Schleswig, Holstein, as well as Norway. Sweden schemed constantly to seize Norway, while Prussia or France could easily snap up Schleswig and Holstein, or the whole of the Jutland Peninsula. Count Bernstorff was in a difficult position. He had to decide which threat was more dangerous: the Russian threat, which could result in the loss of Schleswig, Holstein, and Norway, along with the cities of Lübeck, Altona, and Hamburg or the British threat, a threat which was not yet ready, and could possibly be avoided through diplomacy. Count Bernstorff decided that the British were the lesser threat. Count Bernstorff demonstrated Denmark’s fealty and loyalty to the Coalition with a hard line stance against the British. Count Bernstorff did not believe that Britain would fight a friendly power, and Denmark had historically been a friendly power. As a small maritime power, and gatekeepers of the Baltic, the Danish have always been very cordial with the English. Bernstorff was gambling that this international amity would prevent an English assault. The Danish government also believed their own propaganda that the batteries at Kronborg Castle could prevent any ship from entering into the sound.

The government of Denmark headed by young Crown Prince Frederick put a great emphasis on the national prestige of Denmark. Crown Prince Frederick’s government failed to negotiate even after it was evident that the British were serious and a British fleet anchored at the entrance to the sound. Apart from pride, the Danes were sick of British infringements on their neutrality and the inspection of their merchant ships by British men of war. Five years of inspections and seizures had embarrassed the nation and lowered her prestige. Crown Prince Frederick and Count Bernstorff remained unconvinced by British negotiators, and handled a mission by the British Finance Minister, Vansittart, incredibly poorly by returning the note he had brought from England, because it was written in English and not in French.7 

With the British fleet anchored nearby, Danish leaders still considered Russia as a greater threat than the British because of Prime Minister William Pitt’s resignation. However, Pitt’s resignation was due solely to domestic considerations and not foreign policy. Pitt had resigned because the King refused to grant Irish Catholics emancipation and allow them to hold government offices. Many foreign officials misinterpreted this domestic issue as a collapse of the British war party, and that the British people, weary of war, were going to make a peace with France. This was not the case. Pitt’s supporters formed a new British government and intended to carry the war to its rightful end: the destruction of the French republic, and the removal of Bonaparte.8 While diplomatic efforts stalled, the British fleet prepared to neutralize Denmark, by diplomacy if possible, and force if necessary.

While diplomacy withered, both sides looked to their arms. Admiral Hyde Parker, the hero of Dogger Bank, commanded the expedition. His deputy was Admiral Lord Nelson, Duke of Bronte. Admiral Parker was expected to be the calm, diplomatic officer in the hopes that the Danes would seek a diplomatic solution. In case that failed, Admiral Nelson was the energetic, dashing admiral expected to chastise the Danes into submission. The Danish defenses were commanded in person by the Crown Prince, and at sea by Commodore Olfert Fischer and Captain Steen Bille. The British fleet composed 19 ships of the line, including two 98 gun second raters along with seven frigates and 23 smaller vessels. The Danes opposed this force with about 30 ships of various sizes moored in line to protect the city of Copenhagen, supported by the Trekroner Fort.9 Before the battle, Diplomat Johan Georg Rist regarded the defense of the sound as another Thermopylae saying, “viel Ehre, mit wenig Hoffnung” or “much honour with little hope.”10 As a member of the Danish Government, his opinion demonstrated how greatly the British had underestimated the Danes, who would rather fight a losing war than turn their backs on their allies.

Copenhagen lies on the island of Zealand, and partially on the tiny island of Amager. Copenhagen Roads, the easiest and most obvious route for an attack, is to the northeast of the entrance to the harbor. To the east of the island, about 2,500 yards from the island of Amager, and about 2,000 yards from the Trekroner Fort, lies the Middle Ground, a large shoal that splits Holland Deep from the King’s Deep and the entrance to the port of Copenhagen.

Depiction of the layout of the Battle of Copenhagen

Lord Nelson suggested to Admiral Parker that Nelson take 12 of the ships of the line, four frigates, and several smaller vessels down the Holland Deep, around the Middle Ground, and up the King’s Deep to attack Commodore Fischer’s anchored ships. Parker agreed, and Nelson immediately set to work preparing the way. Nelson had the channel sounded and buoyed. He called his captains onboard to explain his plan of attack.11

On April 1, 1801, Nelson’s squadron weighed anchor and proceeded down their marked channel towards the Danish defense line. As the British approached, the Danes were unsure what to expect. Were the British really going to attack? Would they shell the city with bomb vessels and fire ships? Would they engage the anchored Danish fleet? As night approached, the British fleet was forced to anchor instead of proceeding down the unknown channel in the dark. The British fleet was just 3,000 yards away from the Danish fleet. Crown Prince Frederick gave the order for mortars in the Stricker Battery on Amager Island to open fire on the British fleet. Three shells were fired from the battery into the middle of the British fleet. However, from shore it appeared that the range was too great and the battery ceased fire.12 

The British fleet outnumbered the Danish fleet 262 guns to 150 guns. Nelson’s plan was for his ships to approach the enemy ships, bombard them into submission, and then reduce the Trekronner Fort. Nelson’s advantage in guns was matched by the maneuverability of his fleet fighting against a moored fleet, unable to maneuver. Yet, there were two factors that could make or break Nelson’s plan: wind and water depth. For success, Nelson needed the wind out of the south and water depth sufficient for his fleet to approach the Danish fleet. Throughout the night of April 1st, the wind veered into the south, promising victory on the 2nd. The British fleet could only sound the waters outside of Danish cannon shot. This left plenty of space for ships to run aground. The British Baltic Sea pilots that the fleet had brought with them refused to risk their necks or the ships on the uncharted waters. Instead, Sailing Master Alexander Briarly, of Audacious, volunteered to take responsibility and lead the fleet towards the Danes. Master Briarly had done the same at the battle of the Nile.13 Several British ships of the line ran aground on the Middle Ground Shoal. Nine of the 12 ships of the line were available to Nelson, but the fleet’s pilots refused to come within 300 yards of the Danish line for fear of the Refshale Shoal which was thought to be near the Danish fleet. Instead, the British would fight from 600 yards.

View of Admiral Lord Nelson’s Battle with the Danes before Copenhagen. April 2, 1801. (William Elmes prints from Royal Museums Greenwich)

The battle began at 1000. The Danish fleet composed of man-of-war’s men, merchant sailors, and citizens of Copenhagen fought tenaciously. From his vantage point, Admiral Parker could see three of the ships, Agamemnon, Bellona, and Russell, not participating in the battle as all had run aground in the Hollander Deep. Admiral Parker saw that the Danish fleet had not been overwhelmed and at 1315, Admiral Parker signaled for the action to be discontinued. Upon being told this, Nelson asked if his signal to “engage the enemy more closely” was still flying. He then ordered that signal to remain flying. Nelson turned to Captain Foley and said, “you know Foley, I have only one eye and I have a right to be blind sometimes… I really do not see the signal.” Nelson’s captains saw both Admiral Parker’s signal and Nelson’s signal, and kept up the fight trusting Nelson.14 

Battle of Copenhagen. Nelson holding the telescope to his blind eye. April 1801.  

At 1345, Nelson left the quarterdeck to write a note. Nelson sent a flag of truce on shore with a note, “to the brothers of Englishmen, the Danes,” so that the wounded Danes could be evacuated and the captured ships could be taken into possession, as well as to spare further loss of life. Nelson also threatened to burn Danish vessels with their crews if they did not stop firing. Whether this was a ruse de guerre or belief in his victory, Nelson’s note had the desired effect. By 1400, there was only sporadic firing from the Danish fleet and the bulk of the ships had surrendered. Despite having beaten the Danish fleet into submission, the British fleet was still exposed to the fire of the Stricker Battery and the Trekronner Fort, as well as the dangerous shoals.15

The Danes and Nelson sat down to negotiate an armistice. Because Denmark could not leave the Armed Neutrality, she would halt all military preparations for fourteen weeks and the British would not come within cannon shot of Copenhagen’s fortifications.

Aftermath of the Battle           

News that Tsar Paul had been murdered, and that the new Tsar Alexander favored the British and disliked the French, meant that the Armed Neutrality ceased to exist. The neutralization of Denmark, combined with lack of Russian hostility to the British meant there was little to organize over. Tsar Alexander had renounced all claims to Malta and was ending the embargo against British ships. The Swedish fleet never left Karlskrona; it would certainly have met with defeat at the hands of the British fleet commanded by Lord Nelson. In Egypt, General Abercrombie had decisively defeated the French army, although he paid for his victory with his life. His army had ended French occupation of Egypt. Britain thought it was in a position to make peace with France on equitable terms and not from a position of weakness. However, that peace proved to be elusive; the people of Europe had to wait another 13 years after the Peace of Amiens for lasting peace to come. In 1800, the British took the lesson of 1780 to mind and met the Armed Neutrality head on. Through luck, skill, and the determination of the British Sailor, she defeated it.

LT Jason Lancaster is a U.S. Navy Surface Warfare Officer. He is currently the Weapons Officer aboard USS STOUT (DDG 55). He holds a Masters degree in History from the University of Tulsa. His views are his alone and do not represent the stance of any U.S. government department or agency.

Endnotes

[1] Feldbaek, pg 14.

[2] Tracy, pp 92-96.

[3] Feldbaek, pp 34-35.

[4] Harding, pg 247.

[5] Pope, pg 99.

[6] Ibid, pg 113.

[7] Feldbaek, pp 202-210.

[8] Pope, pg 135.

[9] Anderson, pg 304.

[10] Feldbaek, pg 151.

[11] Pope, 311.

[12] Feldbaek, pg 126.

[13] Feldbaek, pg 134.

[14] Feldbaek, pp 192-193.

[15] Feldbaek, pp 194-195.

Bibliography

Anderson, R.C. Naval Wars in the Baltic. London: Francis Edwards, First Pritning 1910, Second Printing 1969.

Cable, James. The Political Influence of Naval Forces in History. New York: St Martins Press, 1998.

Feldbaek, Ole. Denmark and the Armed Neutrality 1800-1801: Small Power Policy in a World War. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1980.

Harding, Richard. Sea Power and Naval Warfare: 1650-1830. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1999.

Kennedy, Paul. The Rise and Fall of British Naval Mastery. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons Press, 1976.

Lavery, Brian. Nelson’s Navy: The Ships, Men, and Organisation 1793-1815. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 2000.

Pope, Dudley. The Great Gamble: Nelson at Copenhagen. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1972.

Tracy, Nicholas. The Naval Chronicle: The Contemporary Record of the Royal Navy at War 1799-1804, Volume II. London: Chatham, 1998.

Featured Image: The Battle of Copenhagen 1801. The extremely young Sub-lieutenant Peter Willemoes putting heart into his men on his floating naval battery. (Painting by Christian Mølsted 1901. Willemoesgaardens Mindestuer, Assens)