Cabotage is fine, but what about power at sea?

Every year on July 1st, we greet Maritime Day with the same rituals: messages are published, ceremonies are held, and the emphasis on maritime affairs rises for a few days. However, once this short-lived state of remembrance ends, the sea is pushed off the agenda once again. The problem starts right here. Because maritime affairs are not a field that can be remembered periodically; it is a state reflex that requires continuity.

In Turkey, maritime affairs are often treated as an economic field of activity, that is, a "sector." Yet this approach overlooks the strategic depth of the issue. Maritime affairs produce sovereignty beyond trade, build security, and create a geopolitical sphere of influence. For this reason, maritime affairs are not a sector; they are a direct, defining component of state capacity and power projection.

The Cabotage Law, which came into effect in 1926, was one of the most strategic moves of the Republic. The maritime dominance that the Ottoman Empire had lost through capitulations was returned to the Turkish nation. The right to transport cargo and passengers between ports was taken from the hands of foreigners and handed over to the Turkish flag. This was not just an economic regulation; it was the state standing back up at sea.

One must read the mind behind this move correctly. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk did not see the sea as a geography, but as a force multiplier. In his approach, the sea was the backbone of trade, the vein of energy, the forward line of security, and a reflection of state power. This vision was not limited to the military or commercial sphere; it also included the construction of a social maritime culture. Institutions like the Moda Sea Club, founded in 1935, were concrete reflections of this approach in terms of spreading contact with the sea and forming a seafaring society reflex. Indeed, Atatürk set forth this goal with these words: “Turkey, which is in the most beautiful geographical position and surrounded by seas on three sides, has the capability to raise the most advanced seafaring nation with its industry, trade, and sports. We must think of maritime affairs as the great national ideal of the Turk and we must achieve it in a short time.”

Despite nearly a century having passed, we must ask this question today: Is Turkey really acting like a maritime state?

The world is now experiencing a power struggle that begins on land but is decided at sea. Energy lines pass through the seas, data cables are laid on the seabed, and the backbone of global trade is shaped by sea routes. A country's resilience to crises is measured not only by its land army, but by its presence at sea.

The war in Ukraine provided the most concrete example of this. The targeting of ports in the Black Sea and the transformation of grain corridors into a global crisis topic clearly showed how sea routes can be used as an instrument of pressure.

We see a similar picture in the tensions centered on Iran. Every rise in tension in the Strait of Hormuz threatens the global energy flow. The peace hanging by a thread, signed through recent diplomatic initiatives, looks more like a fragile agreement resting on regional balances than a permanent solution. For this reason, every crisis that may occur here creates consequences that could affect not only the region but the entire global economy. Control over sea routes is now a direct determinant of economic power.

That is why the "Blue Homeland" (Mavi Vatan) approach, which Turkey has voiced more loudly in recent years, is not a simple geopolitical discourse; it is a delayed strategic awareness. This approach, beyond defending maritime jurisdiction areas, necessitates showing a constant and effective presence at sea. Because power at sea is built not with maps, but with capacity.

However, there is a critical breaking point here:

In Turkey, maritime affairs are still handled with a fragmented management approach. Ports, shipyards, the merchant fleet, and maritime security are managed under different headings. Yet, maritime affairs are a strategic center standing at the intersection of transport, energy, trade, and defense policies. Managing such a critical field with scattered structures means limiting potential.

Therefore, it is time to speak openly: Turkey needs a strong Ministry of Maritime Affairs structure.

This structure is not just a bureaucratic regulation; it is a strategic necessity. Maritime policies must be managed from a single center with a long-term vision and a holistic approach. More importantly, it is essential that this structure be built with qualified personnel.

Because the truth does not change:

The Cabotage Law gave us rights at sea. But history has shown time and again; rights only have meaning if there is the power to protect them.

As we commemorate July 1st this week, we are not just remembering the past. We are also facing a warning about the future. States that are not strong at sea will one day be forced to defend their own shores.

The goal pointed out by Atatürk still stands before us. But that goal belongs not to those who remember, but to those who do what is necessary.

And now the issue is not a choice, but a necessity:

A state that is not strong at sea is doomed to read its own destiny from maps drawn by others.