As the year begins, maritime capability is once again moving up the political agenda, with major economies reassessing their position in global shipping, shipbuilding and naval influence. India and the United States, in particular, have signalled ambitions to counter China’s continued dominance across the sector.
Last year, The Motorship reported extensively on the United States’ opposition to aspects of the IMO’s proposed Net Zero Framework. These tensions were a central theme during the first day of The Motorship’s Propulsion and Future Fuels Conference in Hamburg last November, where our chair, Lars Robert Pedersen, outlined the sequence of events that led to the current stalemate on emissions regulation.
Much of the US’ stance has been driven by political rhetoric rather than detailed maritime policy. Proposals ranging from the imposition of levies on Chinese-built tonnage calling at US ports to statements concerning strategic waterways such as the Panama Canal underline the increasingly assertive tone being adopted. While such approaches attract attention, their practical impact on global shipping markets remains uncertain.
India, meanwhile, continues to pursue longer-term maritime ambitions. The government has made no secret of its intention to become a maritime power, supported by expanding naval capability, port infrastructure investment and shipyard development. Despite trade frictions with the US and differing geopolitical positions — notably India’s ongoing energy relationship with Russia — military and maritime cooperation between Washington and New Delhi has continued.
The question, however, is how these ambitions translate into commercial shipping and industrial output. In 2024, US-built vessels accounted for just 0.1% of global shipbuilding output, highlighting the scale of the challenge facing any attempt to revive domestic ship construction. Unlike China, the US lacks a network of state-backed shipyards capable of absorbing cyclical losses or sustaining long-term capacity through downturns.
Industry analysis suggests alternative pathways may be more viable. A recent Deloitte report pointed to opportunities in autonomous shipping, alternative fuels and smart port infrastructure — areas where technological leadership may prove more achievable than volume shipbuilding. Whether such strategies will be prioritised remains an open question.
Europe, by contrast, appears comparatively well positioned. Its shipbuilding base, while smaller in volume than China’s, spans high-value segments including cruise vessels, specialist tonnage and workboats. European companies also remain at the forefront of propulsion innovation, alternative fuels and digitalisation — all critical to meeting the IMO’s 2050 net-zero ambition.
If political alignment and industrial policy can be sustained, Europe may be able to capture opportunities created by any slowdown in Chinese output, without resorting to the more confrontational approaches currently shaping parts of the geopolitical debate.
