Dear readers, good morning!
Do you remember beauty pageants? When contestants were once asked what their greatest wish was, the answer was almost always the same: “Peace on earth.” No one, obviously, could disagree.
It is much the same with the “global maritime truce”, which Kyriakos Mitsotakis proposed last week in an address to the UN Security Council and brought up again yesterday, at a Cabinet meeting.
The prime minister spoke of the need “to revive discussion of a global maritime truce”, which would free up vital trade routes and help contain the cost of living.
Let us hope so. But this is where the wishful thinking must end and politics begin.
The question is not whether we want commercial ships to sail without fear of mines, missiles, drones and other attacks. The question is how to persuade those targeting them to stop.
The Houthis, for example, are not waiting for a new international appeal. The UN Security Council demanded as far back as 2024 that they stop attacking commercial ships in the Red Sea immediately. Last month, it reiterated its condemnation of their continuing attacks and threats against commercial shipping. As it turned out, that was not enough.
In the Strait of Hormuz, the situation is even more dramatic. The International Maritime Organization had recorded by 30 October 122 confirmed incidents in the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf of Oman. Ships were damaged or sunk, and seafarers were killed or injured.
How exactly will a truce be secured there? Through a UN resolution? An agreement with Tehran? Sanctions? Concessions? Or military deterrence?
Then there is the Black Sea. The Russia-Ukraine war shows us how blurred the line can become between commercial shipping and the war effort. In July, the IMO condemned a new series of attacks on civilian merchant ships in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov, calling on all parties involved not to endanger commercial shipping.
In September, the IMO’s own secretary-general pointed out that in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov, more than one country was attacking commercial ships.
Yet again, however, an appeal is not enough to stop the attacks.
So what happens when a belligerent believes that an otherwise commercial vessel is serving its adversary’s war effort? Who will persuade it not to attack the vessel? And who will decide whether it is right?
The Mitsotakis proposal, then, is neither absurd nor insignificant. Quite the opposite. It addresses a real and enormous problem. More than 80% of global trade in goods, by volume, is carried by sea, as he reminded the UN. When sea lanes are closed or become dangerous, freight rates and insurance premiums rise, supply chains are disrupted, and the bill ultimately reaches consumers. And that bill has a familiar name: the high cost of living.
That is precisely why the proposal needs more than a declaration of principles.
We need to know who will take part, what exactly they will commit to, who will monitor compliance with the truce and—above all—what will happen when someone violates it.
What is interesting is that the prime minister himself appears to recognise the problem. In the same speech, he argued that Europe cannot remain a bystander when the security of trade routes is threatened, and that it must have robust capabilities and be ready to act when freedom of navigation is under threat. A reasonable point.
Because peace at sea, as on land, is not secured simply because we all agree it is desirable. It requires diplomacy, shared interests, agreements, guarantees and, ultimately, deterrence.
Otherwise, it risks remaining where it began: in the realm of wishes.