.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/1200?cb=20240910020334&path-prefix=pt-br)
The global shipping industry is throwing a collective tantrum because someone suggested they should pay for their own security.
When the International Maritime Organization (IMO) threw its weight against the idea of transit fees in the Strait of Hormuz, the maritime press swooned with relief. The consensus was swift and lazy: the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is a sacred text, freedom of navigation is a birthright, and any attempt to charge for safe passage is an illegal protection racket.
This is a comforting lie.
The reality is that "freedom of navigation" is not a natural state of affairs. It is an expensive, artificial product. For eighty years, global shipping has run on a massive, undeclared subsidy paid for by the American taxpayer. The UN is not defending a grand moral principle; it is defending a global freeloading system that has run out of road.
If we want actual maritime security in an era of state-sponsored piracy and drone warfare, we have to start charging for it.
The Myth of Free Oceans
The mainstream media presents the Strait of Hormuz as a neutral highway that magically remains safe because of international law.
Law without enforcement is just polite paperwork.
The only reason container ships and oil tankers pass through the Bab-el-Mandeb, the Strait of Malacca, or the Strait of Hormuz without being systematically boarded or blown out of the water is the physical presence of naval warships. Specifically, the United States Navy.
Consider the economics of this arrangement:
- The cost of a Carrier Strike Group: It costs roughly $6.5 million per day to operate a single US carrier strike group.
- The beneficiaries: The top nations utilizing these shipping lanes are China, Japan, India, and European Union member states.
- The payers: The American taxpayer, who funds a blue-water navy to secure supply lines for countries that are often geopolitical competitors.
To call this "free navigation" is a delusion. It is a massive transfer of wealth from domestic taxpayers to multinational shipping conglomerates and foreign manufacturing hubs. When the IMO declares that transit fees violate international norms, they are arguing that the US military must remain a free global security guard forever.
That is not a sustainable foreign policy. It is an unpaid security detail.
The Failure of UNCLOS in the 21st Century
The treaty that everyone points to—UNCLOS—was drafted in a different epoch. It was designed for a world where threats came from peer-state navies engaging in traditional fleet battles. It did not anticipate the democratization of violence.
Today, a group of militants operating out of a failed state can disrupt 12% of global trade using cheap, off-the-shelf commercial drones and GPS-guided anti-ship missiles.
+------------------+ +-------------------+ +------------------+
| Traditional | | Asymmetric | | The Real Cost |
| Naval Threat | --> | Drone Warfare | --> | Paid by Navies |
| (State-to-State)| | (Cheap & Lethal) | | (Uneconomic) |
+------------------+ +-------------------+ +------------------+
When a $2,000 drone can only be shot down by a $2 million Aster or Standard Missile, the defensive economics are completely broken.
National navies cannot keep playing this asymmetric game on an infinite loop while the commercial vessels they protect pay nothing for the privilege. Under current maritime law, a ship registered in a tax haven like Liberia or Panama, crewed by underpaid sailors, carrying goods from China to Europe, expects a multimillion-dollar Western destroyer to put itself in harm's way for zero compensation.
If you run a high-value cargo operation through a known warzone, paying a security premium is not extortion. It is basic risk management.
Why Transit Fees are Economically Superior to the Status Quo
Let us dismantle the argument that transit fees would destroy global trade.
Whenever maritime transit fees are discussed, shipping lobbies warn of immediate economic collapse, skyrocketing fuel prices, and broken supply chains. They said the same thing about the Suez Canal surcharges and the expanded Panama Canal tolls.
In reality, market-driven transit fees would create a much healthier ecosystem.
1. It Internalizes the Externalities of Maritime Risk
Right now, shipping lines ignore geopolitical risks because they do not bear the cost of military escort. If passing through the Strait of Hormuz carried a mandatory $50,000 security fee per transit, companies would have to make hard, rational decisions about their routes. They would either pay for the security they consume or seek alternative paths.
2. It Funds Dedicated Escort Forces
Instead of relying on the fluctuating political will of the US Congress to patrol the Persian Gulf, a dedicated, international protection fund paid for by transit fees could permanently finance regional escort vessels. This would decouple trade security from superpower politics.
3. It Ends Flag-of-Convenience Freeloading
Over 70% of the world's merchant fleet is registered in countries like Panama, Liberia, and the Marshall Islands. These nations offer cheap registration, minimal taxes, and zero naval protection capabilities. A transit fee system forces these phantom fleets to finally contribute to the physical security of the waters they exploit.
How a Maritime Security Fee System Actually Works
This is not a theoretical fantasy. We already have working models for international transit fees.
The aviation sector solved this decades ago. When a commercial airline flies through foreign airspace, it pays "overflight fees" to the nation controlling that airspace. This money directly funds the air traffic control systems, radar networks, and search-and-rescue services that keep those skies safe.
Nobody calls overflight fees a protection racket. They call it utility pricing.
Applying this to critical maritime choke points is straightforward:
- Establish a Choke-Point Security Coalition: Nations bordering the strait (such as Oman and the UAE for Hormuz) establish a joint security authority in partnership with international naval forces.
- Implement a Tiered Toll Structure: Fees are assessed based on vessel tonnage, cargo value, and the level of military escort required.
- Escort-on-Demand: Ships that do not wish to pay the fee can transit at their own risk. Those that pay are integrated into convoy groups protected by active air defense networks and anti-submarine escorts.
If a shipping line believes the ocean should be free, they are welcome to sail through the Strait of Hormuz without a military escort. Let us see how long their insurers allow them to operate under those terms.
The Real Winner of the Current System
The loudest defender of the "free ocean" status quo is not the shipping industry. It is China.
China is the world's largest exporter of manufactured goods and the largest importer of crude oil, much of which passes directly through the Strait of Hormuz and the Strait of Malacca. Yet, Beijing maintains only a single modest overseas military base in Djibouti.
China has built its entire economic rise on the back of free security provided by the US Navy.
By opposing any form of transit fees or burden-sharing, the UN and the IMO are actively protecting Beijing's bottom line. They are ensuring that Western navies continue to secure China's energy supply lines for free, even as tensions rise in the Pacific.
Ending this subsidy is not just about economics. It is a geopolitical necessity.
The Illusion of International Law
It is time to drop the sentimentality. The oceans have never been free. They have only been leased to the world by the dominant naval power of the day.
For the last eighty years, that lease was paid for by American taxpayers. That era is ending. As the world transitions to a multipolar reality, the assumption that a single nation will police the global commons for free is dead.
The UN maritime agency can pass all the resolutions it wants. They can cite UNCLOS until they are blue in the face. But the next time a drone strike hits a tanker in the Middle East, a paragraph from a treaty will not shoot it down. A destroyer will.
And destroyers cost money.
If the shipping lines want to use the world's most dangerous corridors, they need to open their wallets. The free ride is over.
