Critical Connection Points: Lessons from the British Empire and the New Power of Connectivity

In the 19th century, the British Empire established its dominance by controlling strategic nodes: ports, canals, and telegraph lines. Today, power is migrating to Critical Connection Points (CCPs) – data hubs, semiconductor supply chains, and undersea internet cables. While the tools of influence have evolved, the underlying logic of controlling networks to project power remains strikingly similar.

The parallels between Victorian imperialism and today’s techno-geopolitical competition reveal enduring truths about international network building and operations controls. This requires more profound reflections on strategies for managing logistics and supply chain opportunities and threats in a networked world that increasingly shifts from physical presence to digital connectivity.

The British Empire’s Blueprint: Nodes of Control

At its zenith, Britain ruled a quarter of the globe by mastering three types of CCPs:

1. Maritime Chokepoints: The Empire secured Gibraltar, the Suez Canal, and the Strait of Malacca—critical passages linking Europe to Asia. These nodes allowed the Royal Navy to dominate global trade routes, ensuring British goods and gunboats could reach every corner of the world. Alfred Thayer Mahan, an American naval strategist, noted, “Who rules the waves rules the world.”
2. Resource Networks: Colonies like India and South Africa funneled cotton, spices, and gold to British factories. The East India Company’s monopoly over the opium trade with China exemplified how controlling commodity flows could destabilize rivals and enrich the metropole.
3. Communication and Financial Hubs: Britain’s “All Red Line” telegraph network, anchored by London’s financial district, allowed real-time coordination of imperial policy and capital. Greenwich Mean Time became the global standard, synchronizing commerce and military operations.

This system relied on hierarchical control: raw materials flowed inward, finished goods outward. Dissent was suppressed through “divide and rule” tactics, which bred fragility. Overextension in defending nodes like Suez and rivalry with rising powers like Germany hastened imperial decline.

Modern CCPs: Digital, Decentralized, and Disruptive

Today’s CCPs are less about territory and more about connectivity. Power resides in:

1. Data and Digital Infrastructure: Undersea cables carry 99% of global internet traffic, with chokeholds like the Luzon Strait (between Taiwan and the Philippines) contested by China and the United States (U.S.) cloud computing giants, AWS, Google, and Alibaba, act as gatekeepers to the digital economy, akin to the East India Company’s trade monopolies.
2. Critical Minerals and Energy Grids: Lithium, cobalt, and rare earth metals are the “new oil” concentrated in Africa and Asia. China’s dominance in processing (controlling 80% of rare earth refining) mirrors Britain’s 19th-century grip on Indian cotton.
3. Financial Networks: SWIFT, cryptocurrency platforms, and central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) are battlegrounds for sanction enforcement and monetary influence. The U.S. dollar’s hegemony echoes sterling’s role in imperial trade.

Unlike Britain’s centralized empire, modern CCPs are polycentric. Middle powers, like the United Arab Emirates (UAE), India, and Singapore, leverage niches in logistics or technology to punch above their weight. Taiwan’s TSMC, producing 90% of advanced semiconductors, exemplifies how microchip supply chains have become “the new Suez Canal”.

Similarities: Network Dominance and Strategic Fragility

Both systems share key vulnerabilities.

Dependency Risks: Just as Britain relied on Indian opium to balance trade with China, Europe now depends on U.S. gas and Chinese batteries. The 2021 Suez blockage, which cost $6 to $10 billion daily, may foreshadow disruptions possible in Taiwan’s semiconductor corridors.

Resilience Over Size: The British Navy’s “two-power standard” (outmatching any two rivals) finds a modern parallel in cyber defense. NATO’s cyber rapid reaction teams (RRTs) prioritize securing nodes over territorial conquest.

Middle Power Leverage: The UAE’s DP World and Singapore’s PSA manage ports from Belgium to Indonesia, replicating in some way Britain’s use of Gibraltar and Aden to control trade flows. Both eras show that small states can wield outsized influence by hosting critical nodes.

Divergences: From Coercion to Co-dependency

Crucial differences reshape the stakes.

Non-Territorial Control: Britain planted flags; today’s powers plant servers. AWS and the Digital Silk Road exert influence without colonies, creating “informal power networks” of data dependency.

Multipolar Competition: The British Empire faced rivals like France and Germany. U.S.-led alliances, China’s Belt and Road, and non-aligned blocs like the BRICS contest today’s CCPs.

Speed and Scale: A 19th-century gunboat took months to reach an area of operations; a cyberattack can cripple systems in seconds. The 2021 Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack caused fuel shortages and panic buying akin to colonial-era spice shortages.

The Future: Avoiding Overreach

History proves that CCP dominance risks backlash. Britain’s extractive model bred counter currents; today’s data inroads fuel digital sovereignty pushes from Europe to Brazil.

Three lessons emerge:

1. Invest in Resilience, Not Just Control: Britain’s reliance on Suez collapsed when Egypt nationalized it. Modern states must diversify critical supply chains, as the U.S., the European Union (EU), and Japan did by subsidizing semiconductor plants domestically.
2. Ethical Stewardship: The Empire’s opium wars left enduring mistrust. Managing CCPs in the long run demands transparency. The EU’s GDPR shows how governance can mitigate risks.
3. Embrace Multipolarity: The British Empire fell partly by resisting rising powers. Integrating middle powers into CCP governance through bodies like the International Cable Protection Committee (ICPC) could prevent new Cold Wars.

Conclusion: Networked Adaptability
The British Empire teaches that controlling nodes shape history, and rigidity breeds collapse. In a globally interconnected world where a single undersea cable outage can cause immediate severe damage and information is the only way to ensure resilience, the new leaders might not be states and organizations with the most territory and resources but those mastering networked adaptability.

Our choice might be whether CCPs become tools of exclusion or platforms for shared security and prosperity. In today’s world of logistics and supply chains, control and competitiveness extend through data networks and digital platforms, requiring a shift in focus from physical presence to digital connectivity. Thriving today requires understanding the mechanisms and dynamics of a digital platform play.