View this email in your browser

Welcome to another issue of SEA STATE!

Just before the start of my Seamanship and Navigation class this past Thursday, I overheard two cadets talking about their participation in the Citadel Republican Society, the official campus auxiliary of the Republican Party on the campus of The Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina. As a newly appointed NROTC instructor, I was about to intervene in the conversation and carefully inform these cadets of their responsibility to remain apolitical while in uniform. However, a second thought crossed my mind: is discussing their participation in a university-endorsed political club a violation of the UCMJ? Where do our first amendment rights truly start and stop as members of the armed forces?

After serving as a legal officer on a DDG for the past four years, I have become accustomed to silencing political discussions on the deck plates and providing training on permissible political activities for service members. I felt like I had a firm grasp of the subject after having lived through a wide range of experiences with sailors onboard the ship, including a time when I received significant pushback from a Seaman Recruit for telling him to remove his red MAGA hat during a Sea & Anchor detail. This situation between the Cadets made me requestion my understanding of the rule. Before me were two uniformed Cadets, both of whom were under NROTC scholarships, discussing political activities and conservative politics in the workplace, yet in the context of a university club. What was I to do other than start class and indirectly end the discussion?

Troves have been written on this topic, and, for good and obvious reasons, first amendment protections do not apply to the same extent for service members as they do for civilians. Chief justice Earl Warren famously wrote that, “our citizens in uniform may not be stripped of basic rights simply because they have doffed their civilian clothes,” but at the same time we are subject to not engage in “conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline in the Armed Forces,” or “conduct unbecoming an officer.” The easiest way to avoid the issue is to not engage with it—to simply restrict political expression to the act of voting—but this may feel too stringent for many of us. Now as an instructor of future Navy and Marine Corps officers, I find myself struggling to not project my opinions on these impressionable cadets.

Whether we asked for it or not, we stand in the unique position as military officers to influence debate and opinion on a variety of political topics. I am sure that each of us have experienced instances where a family member or friend has asked how we feel about something “as a part of the military.” As political debates rage in the United States—from the new Texas abortion law, to reshaping our foreign policy following the Afghanistan collapse and submarine deal with the UK and Australia—the judicious exercise of first amendment rights for military officers will continue to play a role in public debate.

Sincerely,
Michael B. Lemonick
SEA STATE Team Member

NEWS THIS WEEK

“NBA facing fresh China backlash after Enes Kanter slams ‘dictator’ Xi over Tibet” (NBC): NBA star Enes Kanter is coming under scrutiny for a video posted on Twitter in which he calls President Xi Jingping of China a “dictator” while advocating for Tibet’s independence. Kanter’s comments drew quick criticism from China, and the Boston Celtics’s games have been removed from broadcasts in the country. The NBA generates billions of dollars in revenue from its popularity in China, but its business interests there have come under fire in recent years. In 2019, Houston Rockets’ general manager Daryl Morey walked back comments in which he supported pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong after NBA broadcasts were banned across China. The NBA lost billions in revenue, and the organization came under scrutiny for possibly restricting Morey’s freedom of speech in favor of its business interests. The ongoing controversy with Kanter is yet another example of Beijing’s reach and influence in the West.

“COP26: Document leak reveals nations lobbying to change key climate report” (BBC): Next month, the 26th UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) will bring together world leaders in Glasgow, Scotland to discuss courses of action to mitigate climate change. While a large majority of participants have submitted constructive ideas ahead of the conference, a recent leak revealed a few outliers are challenging the validity of the conference and the authority of the UN scientific panel leading the mitigation effort. The leaked documents, which consist of over 32,000 submissions made by governments, revealed that some countries (Saudi Arabia, Japan, and Australia) are asking the UN to downplay the necessity to rapidly move away from fossil fuels, while some wealthy nations are questioning paying poorer nations to switch to greener technologies. While the proposed changes in policy at COP26 may cause temporary socio-economic hardship in these countries, it is crucial to focus on long-term gains when addressing climate change.

IN DEFENSE NEWS

“36 officials, including five admirals, face potential discipline over Bonhomme Richard fire” (NavyTimes): The Navy’s investigation into the fire that destroyed the USS BOHOMME RICHARD last summer concluded that failures at all levels of command lead to the disaster. Previously, only a junior sailor was held accountable for starting the fire, but the investigation now recommends disciplinary action against individuals from the enlisted ranks up to the former three-star head of Naval Surface Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet. The report found that the crew was not prepared to fight a fire, and the shore command was not ready to coordinate support during the ship’s maintenance period. It also attributed many of the problems directly to the commanding officer, CAPT Gregory Thoroman. The surface fleet has struggled to address undertraining in its community, paying high costs for the trend’s persistence -- the investigations into the FITZGERALD and MCCAIN collisions also cited failures in training as factors in the incidents.

“Seattle-Based Coast Guard Cutter’s Journey through the Arctic: No ‘Ice Liberty’ in Changing Waters” (Seattle Times): For the first time since 2005, the USCGC HEALY has transited through the Northwest Passage. The passage consists of several different routes to the Arctic’s waters, and it has become more accessible in recent decades as ice has melted. Despite the increasing frequency of transits, this was the first voyage during which the crew members of the ship were not permitted to disembark the vessel for “ice liberty.” Voyages of this type by the Coast Guard will increase in frequency by 2030 as the service will commission three new icebreaking ships to increase U.S. presence in the Arctic region. As ice around the Arctic melts, new sea lanes will emerge -- opening the door for both economic opportunities as well as strategic competition.

“China's new hypersonic missile demonstrated an advanced space capability that caught US intelligence by surprise, report says” (Business Insider): The Chinese military tested a nuclear-capable hypersonic missile in August which circled the globe in low-orbit space, but the missile failed to hit its intended target by two dozen miles. Recent news coverage has focused on the fact that this test took U.S. intelligence analysts “by surprise.” Other coverage has referred to the test as today’s “Sputnik moment,” implying that this event could be a catalyst for a greater emphasis on advanced missile and space research. Several countries, including the U.S., are competing to develop hypersonic weapons, and once operational, these weapons will drastically impact the maritime battlespace.

PODCAST EPISODE OF THE WEEK

“The Great Supply Chain Disruption” - The Daily, NYT

Of the many disruptions generated by the COVID-19 pandemic, the supply chain stagnation of products manufactured all around the world has both personally affected consumers and slowed down national economies. In this podcast, the host, Sabrina Tavernise, interviews New York Times correspondent Peter Goodman to discuss why those supply chains have not made a full comeback, and how long it may actually take. Goodman focuses his research on ports, and concentrates his analysis on advantages and disadvantages of many companies’ “just in time” supply chain strategy, answering why many ports are now stuck with an incredible backlog of supply. As he takes the listener through the process of international shipping, it’s apparent how supply chains sometimes sacrifice resiliency for efficiency. As this podcast goes through the current issues in interdependencies of the markets, it allows listeners to understand intricacies of a globalized economy. Conflict and tensions in the future will not be isolated to military members and shows of force at sea: rather, escalating tensions with other economic superpowers will be felt by everyday consumers.

Listen to it here.

If you are enjoying SEA STATE, please subscribe below and share with your friends on social media! If you have any questions, comments, tips, or feedback for the SEA STATE team, please email us at the link below.

We’ll see you next week.

This issue of SEA STATE was written and edited by Yash Khatavkar, Lauren Hickey, Emma Quinn, Michael Lemonick, Viraj Patel, Phoebe Kotlikoff, Jeremy Gerstein, Jonathan Falcone, Jake Marx, Madison Sargeant, Polly Finch, Scotty Davids, and Franklin Shew.

SEA STATE is not affiliated with the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, or the Department of Defense. All views expressed or shared in this newsletter are the authors’ own and not necessarily endorsed by the U.S. government or any military entity.