Shipping as a tool for Geopolicy by Commodore (HN Rt) Kostas Papachristodoulou
Inspired by the article of Mr. John Faraclas Death of Diplomacy Part 12, published in www.allaboutshipping.co.uk at the end of last year and a series of articles talking about how shipping is going to be the tool of countries to push Geopolitical plans for 2026, I will try to shed light in relation to this from a Geopolitical point of view. The profile of Geopolicy is neutral. I think that this dimension of Geopolicy is close somehow to the nature of diplomacy, in how it works in both handling issues in different parts, negotiating and passing along messages to friends and adversaries without the threat of aggressive actions or in some cases the possibility of enforcing pressure. Moreover, the other dimension of Geopolicy is that it clearly pursues the power, with diplomacy just seeking for influence.
The 20th century was centred in diplomacy which was basically the “tool” of states internationally to deal with big international problems. As a “soft measure” its influence was implemented in many cases by super or high powers to avoid proceeding to war or conflict. In these senses, the ships which were sailing in international waters were contained in diplomatic measures as representatives of the state under which they were flagged. Shipping was adapted to this trend aligned with diplomatic practice as it was a peace force abroad representing the flag of its origin and negotiating at international level. In the 21st century the superpowers as well as other powerful entities, use more frequently “strategic power” actively to enhance their zones of influence. In this sense the “tool of shipping power” has to be altered in order to be used as a “tool” for Geopolicy. This is addressed by the spectrum of threats which includes military actions with direct attacks on shipping, piracy, hijacking, or even cyber-attacks with most of them being not new but as happened in the past, when ships were armed as in the 18th century.
As I am not sure that Geopolicy remains as neutral as it was, I am sure that merchant vessels cannot carry weaponry to face up to some of these threats, as for example ballistic attacks, whilst I am also sure that Geoeconomy itself cannot work without an aligned Geostrategy (see lately what China does, it developed a large program of warship construction amid its high Geoeconomic development). Even if Geopolicy is assumed neutral through its pillars of Geostrategy and Geoeconomy, it is not and has never been so neutral as these pillars have been in themselves offensive. Thus, we can say that Geo-policy pursues power with a neutral profile, while its pillars are not so neutral in implementing same.
In “allaboutshipping” there are also articles which explain the functions among these factors The relation between Geo-Policy, “Strategy and the Economy” – All About Shipping and “The Strategy of Battle” – All About Shipping.
Shipping has always been mixed up with politics and during all wars. There was a saying that lower level crews in the 19th and 20th century used to repeat: “Wherever war exists, shipping makes money”. But nowadays, the situation is more complicated due to the fact that conflicts are not regionally restricted but widely dispersed. To sum up, nowadays, a “dynamic adaptation” is needed in order that shipping becomes the “tool” for Geopolicy. Taking into consideration the aforementioned, we understand that we need an adaptation between the “tool” (shipping) and the “frame” (Geoeconomy). But this “tool” also has its internal dynamics formulated by the “demand and supply” rules of the international markets, while its operation is supported not only by domestic funds, but also by international funds. As an example, the implementation of sanctions as well as the “hotspots” due to war or conflicts, forces shipping companies to change routes or to skirt the sanctions in some cases due to shipping companies seeking to survive and serve/cover their expenses with the least possible damage. In this sense, the Geopolitical decision does not sometimes consider the threats and risks for maritime companies resulting in perils to their survival, while the violations of sanctions by shipping harm the Geopolicy vice-versa. In simple terms the breaking of sanctions or the activities opposed to a Geopolicy could serve an adversary, while imposing sanctions without the possible harm to the Maritime domain having been assessed imposes unfair competition among shipping companies and a direct threat to legality.
Additionally, several more issues bring instability to the entire system and could avoid shipping permitting itself to be a “tool” of Geopolicy such as political anomalies, coups and superpower intervention, amid continuous changes due to confrontation of states’ leaderships and the clash of international crime as well as periodic changes in politics after a national election which are several and serious this current year (you can see the chart at the end). Now, having stated that the compatible function of Geopolicy for shipping being the “tool” for it, is the Geoeconomy to align and implement Geostrategy, needs to be equally developed with Geoeconomy. In any other case the “roof (Geopolicy) is inclined to one side and the construction is not stable” forcing the “tool” (shipping) to operate outside the frame of Geopolicy/Geoeconomy and take the risks of being punished in case of being captured, violating all these rules and sanctions trying to survive financial damage which the sudden restrictions are creating, diminishing the number of voyages and the ports of call because of the aforementioned Geopolitical misfunction.
In conclusion, a “dynamic adaptation” between Geopolicy and Shipping ought to be achieved through the Geoeconomy in order to manage a smooth functioning towards a stable system, just as in a building where the dynamic adaptation of roofs and pillars maintains stability amid the effects of time and the impact of earthquakes that create turbulence in order for the “tool” to be useful by having been provided with the flexibility to survive sudden restrictions, maintaining its disposal to be used as the “tool” for Geopolicy. The year 2026 will be marked by several political elections around the globe, and will test how flexible the international community is in maintaining normality.
The map below retrieved from Al-Jazeera shows the elections that will take place in 2026, globally:
