IT IS not uncommon for private citizens to be involved in resolving conflicts between nations. At one time, Scandinavians were often the ‘go-to’ guys. Closer to home, the UN-appointed Peter Galbraith negotiated the split of oil and gas revenue between Timor Leste (East Timor) and Australia.
The most recent example of private citizens resolving an intractable conflict, was the successful negotiation by Americans Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner leading to the release of Israelis held by Hamas (albeit Kushner had an interest in politics).
The American duo succeeded in uniting representatives of three religions — Christian, Islamic and Jewish — where politicians, to their eternal shame, failed, either intentionally, or through indifference. If the Americans could succeed, it follows that shipowners who decide to negotiate the resolution of conflicts involving the safe passage of vessels through international waterways, could also succeed.
Political conflicts that either affect, or prevent, the safe passage of vessels through international waterways, have a negative impact upon, among other things, shipowners. Their vessels could be attacked by rebels or worse, prevented from transiting international waterways, such as the Strait of Hormuz.
Shipowners (and their P&I club) are apolitical. Their vessels regularly visit the ports of nations that are in conflict with one another, without hinderance. Their apolitical stance gives them a valuable advantage: negotiating with clean hands.
For too long, shipowners have operated on auto-pilot, leaving the safety of international waterways, to others. They have failed to realise that the world order has changed; that belligerent nations will aggrandise their status over smaller nations; and that the freedom of navigation international waterways, are long gone. Also seemingly gone are the days when powerful nations could intervene on behalf of a smaller nation. Think of the coalition that restored Kuwait’s sovereignty after the Iraqi invasion in 1990.
Shipowners need to accept current reality viz that government leaders exhibit an alarming level of insouciance to war, even when it’s in their backyard. Consider the January 2026 annual bash of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Switzerland.
Their website notes that, “… more than 60 heads of state and a record 400+ political leaders and 830 CEOs and chairs came to the Magic Mountain under the theme 'A Spirit of Dialogue'”. In January, the war in Ukraine, almost in its fourth year, had caused massive losses of young soldiers and displaced millions. And despite WEFs website noting that it is “… committed to improving the state of the world”, the four riveting takeaways from the 2026 bash were: New deals, new dynamics; A reckoning for humanity; Dialogue does move the dial; and Living the questions. Hilarious? Absolutely. Recall Basil Fawlty’s ‘don’t mention the war’. Oh, and just by the way, neither shipowners nor rebel attacks on shipping appeared even as a blip on the radar at Davos.
Shipowners should direct their negotiating skills towards two areas: First, preventing conflict between coastal nations, whenever such conflict threatens the safety of vessels transiting international waterways. Secondly, resolving actual conflict that is affecting international waterways. For the first, they would be required to keep abreast of world events, which is not difficult. Marine insurers, P&I Clubs and maritime consultants maintain a watching brief on such events. P&I Clubs representing shipowners, are no strangers to negotiating with governments, in securing the release of an arrested vessel or a detained seafarer. For the second, resolution could be achieved through negotiation and/or the payment of a gratuity. Shipowners have been paying gratuities to protect their vessels from rebel attacks.
While nations do not use the word 'gratuity' in their trade negotiations with other nations, their weapon of choice, the tariff, is a gratuity clothed in commercialese. If nations can use tariffs to protect their national interests, shipowners are entitled to use gratuities to protect their interests. Squealing about losses caused by political conflicts, indicates that shipowners lack the nimbleness — apologies for the cliché — to operate in a changing world order. Reversing the losses is in their hands and achievable by getting involved in resolving conflicts.
The current crisis in the Middle East should make shipowners realise that they have enjoyed a free ride, while nations did the heavy lifting of conflict resolution. The time has come for shipowners to venture out of their comfort zone. Their apolitical standing means that they have nothing to lose, but much to gain.
This article is the opinion of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of DCN.