SECURITY permeates every aspect of Europe’s forthcoming maritime and ports strategy.

The language may be more sober than some of the reports issued by their US counterparts, but the Brussels machine is on a war footing.

Everything from ports to ferries are being considered in the context of ‘dual-use’ military scenarios and the overall tone of policy has now shifted towards economic, trade and energy security.

China may not be named directly, but its maritime dominance and ownership of strategic ports is the target here. US protectionism is the overt context.

Times have changed. The decades-long programme of investment previously willingly accepted from Chinese firms that have astutely acquired a leading commercial position across maritime infrastructure internationally, is now being recast in light of shifting geopolitical realities.

Who owns and controls the infrastructure of global supply chains matters. Or at least it matters more now than when those investments were made with, of course, the full support of the same Western political institutions now rapidly seeking ways to ‘de-risk’ their economic reliance on China’s maritime dominance.

While the imminent EU security review is unlikely to displace existing contracts or see Chinese firms forcibly severed from their assets, particularly given the delicate need to maintain the flow of investment, renewing or extending contracts has just become that much more difficult.

Brussels has finally recognised that shipping plays a vital role in securing the supply chains that underpin the EU’s economies. Maintaining a substantial share of maritime assets is therefore essential for the EU’s prosperity, resilience and sovereignty.

As far as the shipping industry is concerned that is good news when it comes to asking for political and economic support. Shipping’s political capital has never been higher and the days of sea blindness at a policy level are now long gone.

But it also means that transparency matters a lot more than it did.

Shipping is no longer just commercial infrastructure; it is now strategic infrastructure.

The ultimate beneficial ownership and control of strategic assets, companies and ships is now a matter of political scrutiny, not just financial and insurance due diligence.

For some that will be seen a competitive advantage, but disentangling the interconnected nature of shipping’s global affiliations may well yet throw up more security risks than many might assume.

Richard Meade
Editor-in-chief, Lloyd’s List

Click here to view the latest Lloyd’s List Daily Briefing